USA v. Mitchell et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 1:11-CR-20613-GAYLES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REGINALD MITCHELL,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Reginald Mitchell’s Motion for
Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“Motion”). [ECF No. 521]. The
Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the following
reasons, Defendant’s Motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Defendant is a 41-year-old male incarcerated at the Coleman Low Federal Correctional
Institution (“FCI Coleman”) with a projected release date of March 14, 2037.1 On September 6,
2012, Defendant pled guilty to: (1) conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951;
(2) interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); and (3) use of a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence resulting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 924(j)(1). Defendant’s charges were based on his participation in a conspiracy
to commit an armed robbery of a Brinks truck courier. Notably, Defendant helped plan the robbery
and provided the firearm that was used to kill the courier. See [PSR ¶¶ 16, 17].
1 See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last accessed on March 5, 2026).
Case 1:11-cr-20613-JLK Document 527 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 1 of 6

2
On May 2, 2013, United States District Judge James Lawrence King sentenced Defendant
to 20 years’ imprisonment as to Counts 1 and 2, to run concurrent with each other, followed by a
10 year consecutive sentence for Count 3. [ECF No. 355].2
On June 3, 2025, Defendant filed a compassionate release request with the Warden at FCI
Coleman. The Warden denied the request on June 10, 2025. Defendant now seeks a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), arguing that (1) intervening changes in the law,
(2) hardship endured during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (3) his rehabilitation constitute
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court has limited authority to modify a sentence of imprisonment. United States v.
Burkes, No. 9:18-CR-80113, 2020 WL 2308315, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2020) (citing United
States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194–95 (11th Cir. 2010)). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, as modified
by the First Step Act of 2018, courts may reduce a term of imprisonment
upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the
defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal
a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the
lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s
facility, whichever is earlier . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2018). If administrative requirements are satisfied, courts must find
that the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support release and that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Courts must also find
2 Defendant’s guideline imprisonment term was life imprisonment. See [PSR ¶ 75]. However, Judge King granted the
Government’s 5K1.1 Motion to Reduce Sentence, [ECF No. 310], resulting in the lower sentence.
Case 1:11-cr-20613-JLK Document 527 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 2 of 6

3
that the defendant is “not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community. . . .” U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(2) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2018).
Thus, to grant relief, the Court must make specific findings that: (1) Defendant exhausted
his administrative remedies; (2) the § 3553(a) factors support Defendant’s compassionate release;
(3) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant Defendant’s request; and (4) Defendant is not a
danger to the safety of other persons or the community. The burden lies with Defendant to establish
that his request is warranted. See United States v. Hylander, No. 18-CR-60017, 2020 WL 1915950,
at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020) (citing United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir.
2013)).
DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that Defendant exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing the
Motion. Defendant’s Motion, however, fails on the merits because (1) the § 3553(a) factors do not
support release, (2) he remains a danger to the safety of other persons or the community, and (3)
he has not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release.
A. Section 3553(a) Factors
The Court finds that the Section 3553(a) factors do not support Defendant’s release. Section
3553(a) requires a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary . . . .” 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
The Court must consider: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the need for the sentence imposed” to “reflect the seriousness
of the offense,” “afford adequate deterrence,” and “protect the public”; (3) “the kinds of sentences
available”; (4) “the sentencing range”; (5) “any pertinent policy statement”; (6) “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities”; and (7) “the need to provide restitution to any victims . . . .” Id.
Case 1:11-cr-20613-JLK Document 527 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 3 of 6

4
Defendant’s convictions are based on his active participation in a conspiracy to commit an
armed robbery which resulted in a death. Defendant planned the robbery with co-defendant Uri
Ammar; enlisted his cousin, girlfriend, and friend to carry out the robbery; and provided the
firearm that was used to kill the Brinks courier. Considering the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing,
Judge King concluded that a total sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment was appropriate based on
Defendant’s actions. Defendant has not provided new and convincing evidence supporting a
modification to that sentence. See United States v. Post, No. 9:15-CR-80055, 2020 WL 2062185,
at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2020) (holding sentence reduction not warranted in light of § 3553(a)
factors where “much of the information that [defendant] provide[d] in his Motion was before the
court at the time of his sentencing” and the imposed sentence was appropriate). Therefore, the §
3553(a) factors do not support granting the Motion.
B. Danger to the Community
The Court also finds that Defendant still poses “a danger to the safety of any other person
or to the community.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a)(B)(2). In making this
determination, this Court has considered (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged”;
(2) “the weight of the evidence against” Defendant; (3) “the history and characteristics” of
Defendant; and (4) “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that
would be posed by [Defendant’s] release.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Importantly, Defendant was not a passive participant in the armed robbery. Rather, he
played an organizing role, recruited others to join the scheme, and supplied the firearm that was
used to kill the courier. The offense was violent and fatal. While the Defendant has made some
rehabilitative efforts, they do not overcome the significance of the Defendant’s criminal conduct.
Case 1:11-cr-20613-JLK Document 527 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 4 of 6

5
Based on this record, the Court finds that Defendant remains a danger to the community such that
compassionate release is not warranted.
C. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
Defendant also fails to present extraordinary and compelling reasons for reducing his
sentence. First, Defendant’s conditions of confinement may not serve as a basis for compassionate
release, as prison conditions are not one of the categories of extraordinary and compelling
circumstances 	the 	Sentencing 	Commission 	has 	determined 	may 	support 	a 	reduced
sentence. See United States v. Magluta, No. 21-13477, 2023 WL 4241281, at *4 (11th Cir. June
29, 2023) (“But as the district court correctly held, § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) does not authorize an
inmate's release based on the conditions of his confinement or the fact that those conditions are
unfair.”). Second, Defendant’s rehabilitation, standing alone, does not constitute an extraordinary
and compelling reason for compassionate release. See United States v. Guyton, 859 F. App’x. 435,
437 (11th Cir. 2021). Finally, because the § 3553 factors do not support Defendant’s compassionate
release and he remains a danger to the community, the Court need not consider whether an
intervening change in the law has produced a gross disparity between Defendant’s sentence and
the sentence he would receive today.3
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
3 The Government contends that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(b)(6) which allows, in certain circumstances, a nonretroactive change in the law to constitute an extraordinary
and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. This issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court in Carter
v. United States, No. 24-860, 2025 WL 1603599 (U.S. Jun 6, 2025) and Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820, 2025
WL 1603603 (U.S. June 6, 2025).
Case 1:11-cr-20613-JLK Document 527 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 5 of 6

6
1. 	Defendant Reginald Mitchell’s Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), [ECF No. 521], is DENIED.
2. 	The 	Government’s 	Motion 	for 	Stay, 	[ECF 	No. 	523], 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for
Appointment of Counsel, [ECF No. 524], and Defendant’s Request for Clarification,
[ECF No. 526], are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of March, 2026.
___ ____________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:11-cr-20613-JLK Document 527 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 6 of 6