USA v. Alazzam et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JERMAINE DION WHITE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:21-CR-501-DAK
Judge Dale A. Kimball
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction Under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)((A) [ECF No. 606]. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may reduce
the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
that they are applicable, if it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction. Defendant requests that the court release him from custody because of his ulcerative
colitis condition, which has caused him to be hospitalized twice during his period of
incarceration. The United States filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion. As the movant,
Defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is eligible for the requested sentence
reduction. United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Green, 764
F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014).
The First Step Act modified 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a federal prisoner to file
a motion directly with the court to reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment after the
defendant has exhausted administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. United States v.
Willis, 382 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1187 (D.N.M. 2019). Although not jurisdictional, the exhaustion
requirement set forth in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule that district courts
Case 2:21-cr-00501-DAK Document 614 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
must enforce when the government invokes it. See United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4 th 1027,
1031 (10th Cir. 2021). As such, the exhaustion rule cannot be judicially waived for equitable
considerations, such as “a finding that exhaustion would be futile.” United States v. Johnson, 849
F. App’x 750, 752-53 (10th Cir. 2021).
In this case, Defendant states that he submitted a request for compassionate release to the
warden on August 4, 2025, and that the warden denied his request on August 11, 2025. But he
did not attach any documentation. Because there is no proof of exhaustion, Defendant’s motion
cannot proceed in this court. Moreover, even if the court was to accept Defendant’s allegation as
proof, he alleges that the warden denied the request within the first thirty days. When a warden
denies a request within thirty days, courts in this Circuit require “full administrative
exhaustion—including, internal administrative appeals of the warden’s decision.” United States
v. Cook, No. 21CR895, 2023 WL 4848514, at *2 (D.N.M. July 28, 2023); United States v.
Tafoya, No. CR 15-4112 RB, 2022 WL 3586247, at *2 (D.N.M. Aug. 22, 2022), aff’d No. 22-
2110, 2023 WL 4446353 (10th Cir. July, 11, 2023). It is only when thirty days have passed from
the defendant’s unanswered request to the warden that allows the defendant to proceed to district
court for relief. United States v. Garcia, No. 2:21-CR-236-HCN-DBP-16, 2024 WL 3634284, at
*5 (D. Utah Aug. 2, 2024) (quoting United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 830 (10th Cir.
2021)). There is no allegation that Defendant proceeded to exhaust all his administrative
remedies after the warden’s denial. Accordingly, the court denies and dismisses Defendant’s
motion for failure to demonstrate that he has exhausted administrative remedies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasoning, Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) [ECF No. 606] is DENIED and DISMISSED.
Case 2:21-cr-00501-DAK Document 614 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
Dated this 13th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
Case 2:21-cr-00501-DAK Document 614 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3