USA v. Eklund

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS HOLGER EKLUND,
Defendant. Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
Before the Court at Docket 674 is Defendant Louis Holger Eklund’s Motion for
Compassionate Release. 	Mr. Eklund1 then submitted an Amended Motion for
Compassionate Release at Docket 681. 	The Government filed a response in
opposition at Docket 682. The U.S. Probation Office for the District of Alaska filed a
sealed Compassionate Release Investigation Report at Docket 686, in which it
recommended that the motion be denied.
On November 12, 2021, this Court sentenced Mr. Eklund to 84 months of
incarceration after he was found guilty on two counts of Cyberstalking.2 	Mr. Eklund
is currently in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody and incarcerated at FCI Pekin; his
projected release date is April 23, 2024.3 	Mr. Eklund seeks an order reducing his
1 The Court recognizes Mr. Eklund’s preference to use his first and middle names, but for
consistency in the Court’s proceedings and rulings, the Court will continue to refer to him as Mr.
Eklund. See Docket 681 at 2 n.1.
2 Docket 618 (Judgment).
3 Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator (available at www.bop.gov/inmateloc/) (last accessed
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund
Order re Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 2 of 7
sentence to time served.4 	For the reasons below, the Court denies Mr. Eklund’s
motion.
I. 	Applicable law
The First Step Act of 2018, enacted on December 21, 2018, amended 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow federal inmates to move the district court for a
sentence reduction after exhausting their administrative rights.5 	If an inmate has
exhausted his administrative rights, a district court must consider the motion on the
merits. 	On the merits, in order to reduce a sentence, a court must find that
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction and that the
applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a sentence reduction.6
Although a district court must make both findings “before it grants compassionate
release, 	a 	district 	court 	that 	properly 	denies 	compassionate 	release 	need 	not
evaluate each step.”7
Following a November 1, 2023, amendment to the Sentencing Commission’s
policy statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, “Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),” that policy statement now applies to both BOP-filed and
February 12, 2024).
4 Docket 681 at 10.
5 First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Prior to this amendment, only
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons could bring a motion to reduce an inmate’s sentence.
6 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
7 United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original) (disagreeing with
the defendant that a district court must make an explicit “extraordinary and compelling” finding
before denying a motion based on the § 3553(a) factors).
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund
Order re Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 3 of 7
defendant-filed compassionate release motions.8 	“Congress has only placed two
limitations directly on extraordinary and compelling reasons: the requirement that
district courts are bound by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement and the
requirement that ‘rehabilitation alone’ is not extraordinary and compelling.”9 	The
Court is thus bound by the policy statement when considering any compassionate
release motion.10
II. 	Exhaustion of administrative rights
An inmate has exhausted his administrative rights if the warden of the inmate’s
facility has denied the inmate’s request for compassionate release or if 30 days have
lapsed from the warden’s receipt of the request for compassionate release.11 	Mr.
Eklund submitted a request for compassionate release to the warden which was
8 See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (“Upon motion of the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons or the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court
may reduce a term of imprisonment . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. supplement to app. C, amend.
814 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (changing § 1B1.13(a) language to include defendant-filed
motions and noting that this November 1, 2023, amendment made the policy statement applicable
to defendant-filed motions).
9 United States v. Roper, 72 F.4th 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2023) (alteration omitted) (quoting United
States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022)).
10 This is in contrast to previous Ninth Circuit case law, which held that while the policy statement at
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 “may inform a district court’s discretion,” it was not binding on a district court
considering a defendant-filed compassionate release motion. This was because the § 1B1.13
policy statement at that time applied only to BOP-filed compassionate release motions. United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Chen, 48 F.4th at 1095 (noting that,
in Aruda, the Ninth Circuit “determined that the Sentencing Commission’s [then] current policy
statement, which [was] applicable to motions filed by the BOP Director, [did] not also apply to
defendant-filed motions for compassionate release, and thus, there [was] no applicable policy
statement binding the district court’s consideration of extraordinary and compelling reasons” in a
case where the defendant filed a compassionate release motion).
11 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund
Order re Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 4 of 7
received on September 6, 2023. 12 It appears that the warden did not respond to the
request. 13 	The government does not dispute that Mr. Eklund has exhausted his
administrative rights.14 Therefore, the Court will consider the motion on its merits.
III. 	Extraordinary and compelling reasons
Mr. Eklund, who is currently 44 years old, submits that extraordinary and
compelling grounds exist for a reduction in sentence because his confinement
conditions have been particularly punitive and harsh, and his rehabilitation and re-
entry would be promoted if he were released to a Residential Reentry Center.15 Mr.
Eklund explains that “he was subject to nearly perpetual lockdown” during the
COVID-19 pandemic, held in quarantine when he was transferred to Nevada and
Missouri, isolated with no access to the outdoors at another facility, and locked in a
cell for two weeks at one other prison.16 	He asserts that he “endured medical
shortages, staff shortages, food shortages, & [a] general inability to manage the
number of prisoners in the BOP care.”17 	In addition, Mr. Eklund maintains that he
“has shown great interest in making efforts toward rehabilitation” by working with a
12 Docket 182-1.
13 Mr. Eklund’s amended motion for compassionate release was filed on December 13, 2023—
more than 30 days after the warden received the request. Docket 681.
14 See generally Docket 682.
15 Docket 681 at 4-9.
16 Docket 681 at 4-5.
17 Docket 681 at 6.
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund
Order re Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 5 of 7
mental health provider and participating in educational programs. 18 	Mr. Eklund
contends that, if released from BOP custody now and ordered to enter a residential
reentry program or home confinement, he would be better placed to achieve his
rehabilitative goals and receive counseling, job training, and skill development,
among other things.19
In response, the Government asserts that Mr. Eklund’s unsworn statements
“are not credible evidence regarding his conditions of confinement,” and that even if
true, the conditions “are not so severe as to warrant a reduction in sentence.”20 The
Government further contends that even if more social services would be available
outside of BOP custody, Mr. Eklund cites no authority for why that constitutes an
extraordinary 	or 	compelling 	reason 	for 	a 	reduction 	in 	sentence. 	Finally, 	the
Government points out that Mr. Eklund has had multiple disciplinary infractions while
incarcerated, 	and 	that 	“his 	refusal 	to 	return 	to 	general 	population 	belies 	his
complaints regarding pandemic-related lockdowns.”21
In the Compassionate Release Investigation Report, the Probation Officer
noted that Mr. Eklund was not currently eligible for placement in a residential reentry
18 Docket 681 at 7.
19 Docket 681 at 8-9.
20 Docket 682 at 6.
21 Docket 682 at 7.
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund
Order re Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 6 of 7
program due to an outstanding warrant from Washington.22 	However, Mr. Eklund
then filed a notice that the outstanding warrant had recently been quashed.23
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	Mr. 	Eklund 	has 	not 	established 	extraordinary 	and
compelling 	reasons 	that 	would 	justify 	a 	reduction 	in 	sentence. 	Mr. 	Eklund’s
conditions of confinement—though more severe than normal—and his potential for
better rehabilitation outside of incarceration in his remaining two months in custody
do not warrant a reduction in sentence. 	Moreover, it is the Court’s understanding
that Mr. Eklund may now be eligible for placement in a residential reentry program by
BOP given that a prior warrant for his arrest—which made him ineligible for the
program—has been quashed.24 	However, his placement in such a program is
determined by the BOP, not by this Court, so long as he is in BOP custody.
IV. 	Section 3553(a) factors
Because Mr. Eklund has not made a threshold showing of extraordinary and
compelling reasons for a reduction in sentence, the Court need not determine
whether the § 3553(a) factors weigh in his favor.25
22 Docket 686 at 3 (sealed) (noting that the warrant was from Washington Case No. 01-1-00693-6,
for felony Escape in the First Degree).
23 Docket 687.
24 See Docket 686 at 3 (sealed); Docket 687; Docket 687-1.
25 “Although a district court must perform [the § 3582(c)(1)(A)] sequential inquiry before it grants
compassionate release, a district court that properly denies compassionate release need not
evaluate each step.” Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (emphases in original) (disagreeing with the defendant
that a district court must make an explicit “extraordinary and compelling” finding before denying a
motion based on the § 3553(a) factors).
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund
Order re Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION
In 	light 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for
Compassionate Release at Docket 674 and Defendant’s Amended Motion for
Compassionate Release at Docket 681 are each DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 7 of 7