USA v. Mendiola et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUAN MENDIOLA,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:08-cr-00119-SLG
ORDER STAYING ACTION AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCE MOTION FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
Before the Court at Docket 1132 is defendant Juan Mendiola’s Motion and
Memorandum for Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The government responded in opposition at Docket 1136. With leave from the
Court, Mr. Mendiola filed a reply at Docket 1140. The U.S. Probation Office filed
a sealed Compassionate Release Investigation Report at Docket 1133.
I. The issues presented in the compassionate release motion
Mr. Mendiola seeks a reduction in sentence based primarily on the
mandatory “stacked” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentences he received when he was
sentenced in 2010.1 In 2018, the First Step Act modified the stacking provisions
in § 924(c). Mr. Mendiola asserts that the First Step Act’s “changes to the § 924(c)
1 Docket 1132. Although Mr. Mendiola categorizes his asserted extraordinary and compelling
circumstances as an “excessive sentence,” a “trial penalty,” “unwarranted sentencing
disparities,” and “post-sentencing changes in the law,” these assertions all generally relate, at
least in part, to his being subject to the mandatory § 924(c) stacking provisions.
Case 3:08-cr-00119-RRB Document 1141 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:08-cr-00119-SLG, United States v. Mendiola
Order Staying Action and Holding in Abeyance Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 2 of 4
sentencing scheme warrant a reduction in sentence” and that if he were sentenced
pursuant to the current § 924(c) scheme he would be subject to a significantly
lower mandatory minimum sentence.2 The government responds that the “First
Step Act’s non-retroactive amendments to § 924(c) cannot serve as an
‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason for a reduction in sentence” and notes that
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral argument on this issue
next month.3 Mr. Mendiola replies that “Congress’s judgment about the retroactive
application of the revised 924(c) sentencing structure says nothing about whether
the compassionate release statute can be used to grant individual relief in the most
grievous cases”; his reply does not dispute that this issue is currently pending
before the Ninth Circuit.4
II. Issue pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Court has reviewed the Ninth Circuit dockets in United States v. Wilson
(20-50328), United States v. Chen (20-50333), and United States v. Young (21-
50149). These cases have been assigned to the same Ninth Circuit panel and
they all involve the same issue: “In determining whether ‘extraordinary and
compelling reasons’ warrant a sentence reduction/compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), may a district court consider non-retroactive changes
2 Docket 1132 at 4.
3 Docket 1136 at 6, 10.
4 Docket 1140 at 4 (internal quotation omitted).
Case 3:08-cr-00119-RRB Document 1141 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:08-cr-00119-SLG, United States v. Mendiola
Order Staying Action and Holding in Abeyance Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 3 of 4
to a mandatory sentencing scheme?”5 United States v. Wilson and United States
v. Chen specifically raise the issue in the context of the First Step Act’s amendment
to the § 924(c) stacking provision.6
III. Stay of this case pending resolution by the Ninth Circuit
A district court has the discretionary authority to sua sponte stay
proceedings pending before it.7 When deciding whether to grant a stay, among
those interests to be weighed are “the possible damage which may result from the
granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
expected to result from a stay.”8
The Court finds that there will be little harm to either party by staying this
case. Mr. Mendiola is seeking to have his sentence reduced to from 65 to 15
5 United States v. Wilson, Case No. 20-50328, Docket 46 (Ninth Circuit Notice of Related
Cases). The Ninth Circuit sua sponte appointed defense counsel in United States v. Wilson and
United States v. Chen specifically to address this issue. Case No. 20-50328, Docket 25; Case
No. 20-50333, Docket 17.
6 Case No. 20-50328, Docket 35 at 12 (appellant’s opening brief); Case No. 20-50333 at 12
(appellant’s opening brief).
7 Leyva v. Cert. Grocers of Calif., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (1979) (“A trial court may, with
propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay
of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.
This rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in
character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling
of the action before the court.”).
8 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
Case 3:08-cr-00119-RRB Document 1141 Filed 05/11/22 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:08-cr-00119-SLG, United States v. Mendiola
Order Staying Action and Holding in Abeyance Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 4 of 4
years—even if the Court were to grant a reduction in sentence to that extent, Mr.
Mendiola would still have several years left to serve in custody. The Court does
not expect the stay to be particularly lengthy, as the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to
hear oral argument on this issue next month, on June 16, 2022. There is efficiency
and judicial economy to be gained by staying these proceedings. Moreover, the
parties and the Court have an interest in the Court applying the correct law to the
instant motion. Resolution of the relevant issue by the Ninth Circuit will
substantially aid this Court in determining Mr. Mendiola’s motion for
compassionate release because the issue presented in this case is the exact issue
the Ninth Circuit will be considering in United States v. Wilson (20-50328) and
United States v. Chen (20-50333). Therefore, the Court finds that the relevant
interests justify a stay. The Court will allow the parties to file supplemental briefing
to address the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of this issue when the stay is lifted.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 1132 is
HELD IN ABEYANCE and this matter is STAYED pending the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeal’s decision in the above-named cases.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:08-cr-00119-RRB Document 1141 Filed 05/11/22 Page 4 of 4