USA v. Torres Villa

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANGELICA RAMOS TORRES
VILLA,
Defendant.
4:22-CR-3132
ORDER
The defendant has moved to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Filing 49. That section permits the Court to modify a term of
imprisonment if the defendant shows "extraordinary and compelling reasons"
warranting such a reduction. The Court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, to the extent they are applicable, and reduction of the defendant's
sentence must be consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Court
will deny the defendant's motion.
The basis for the defendant's motion is her allegation that she "is the
only available caretaker for her four minor children of 18 years old and younger
at this time." Filing 49 at 18. She claims that the three youngest of her five
children1 are the subject of a dependency proceeding in Colorado because their
father has been charged with abusing them. Filing 49 at 18.
Among the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may merit a
sentence reduction are "death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the
defendant's minor child." § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(c). And the Court will assume,
without deciding, that parental incarceration may be "incapacitation" within
1 Miguel, age 21; Ashley, age 18; and three minors aged 16, 14, and 12. See filing 37 at 9.
4:22-cr-03132-JMG-CRZ Doc # 61 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

- 2 -
the meaning of § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(c). See United States v. Nazer, No. 18-CR-
783, 2020 WL 2197840, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2020) (defining "incapacitate"
for purposes of § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(c)).
But courts generally deny compassionate release when another suitable
caregiver is available for the defendant's child. United States v. Cates, No. 1:20-
CR-223, 2023 WL 167409, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2023) (collecting cases); see
also United States v. Watson, No. 4:18-CR-40018, 2024 WL 1093757, at *3
(D.S.D. Mar. 13, 2024) (collecting cases); cf. United States v. Laureti, 859 F.
App'x 490, 491 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying compassionate release motion where movant failed to
show that another family member was incapable of providing care for his minor
children). And here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that the
defendant's children are being cared—well-cared for—by their adult siblings.
Filing 52 at 3-5.
The record also casts substantial doubt on the defendant's ability to care
for the children herself, at least in the short term, were she to be released. See
filing 52 at 2. She was not their primary caregiver before being arrested, and
her threadbare release plan would not seem to permit caring for three minor
children. See filing 52 at 3-4; see also filing 49 at 9.
The Court acknowledges the defendant's argument that this situation
places a burden on the eldest sibling that, as a 21-year-old man, he shouldn't
have to bear. See filing 59 at 2. That much is not in question. But what is in
question is whether releasing the defendant will do anything to help, and the
Court finds little to suggest that any of the children would be better cared for,
or better off, were she released—certainly not enough to outweigh the § 3553(a)
factors, which continue to weigh in favor of the defendant's term of
imprisonment. Accordingly,
4:22-cr-03132-JMG-CRZ Doc # 61 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

- 3 -
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for compassionate
release (filing 49) is denied.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
4:22-cr-03132-JMG-CRZ Doc # 61 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>