USA v. West

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
VERSUS 23-51-SDD-EWD
EZRA P. WEST
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reduction of
Sentence/Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) ("Motion") filed
by Defendant, Ezra P. West ("Defendant").1 The Government opposes this Motion,2 and
Defendant filed a Reply.3 Because Defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies
prior to filing the Motion, it is denied.
The Government asserts that the Defendant has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. As such, the threshold issue is whether the Court has authority
to consider the Defendant's motion.
The compassionate release statute states in pertinent part:
The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed
except that ... the court, 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, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose
a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that
does not exceed the unserved portion of the original 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 ....4
1 R. Doc.42.
2 R. Doc.44.
3 R. Doc. 46. Though classified as a letter, this is in effect Defendant's Reply.
418U.S.C.§3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Case 3:23-cr-00051-SDD-EWD Document 47 03/20/26 Page 1 of 3

The statute therefore provides two routes whereby a defendant's motion can be
brought properly before the court. Both routes begin with the defendant requesting that
"the Bureau of Prisons" "bring a motion on the defendant's behalf."5
As clarified by the Court in United States v. Franco6 the statute's language is
mandatory. Congress has commanded that a "court may not modify a term of
imprisonment" if a defendant has not filed a request with the BOP.7
The Government represents in its opposition that the BOP advised that Defendant
did not submit a request for compassionate release to the Warden and supports this
assertion with an email from the BOP indicating Defendant filed no such requests.8 In
response, Defendant argues, without producing any evidence, that he did submit the
request.9 Administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to the filing of each motion
seeking compassionate release, and it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate he
exhausted administrative remedies with respect to the particular requests made in the
motion seeking compassionate release.10 Defendant has not included sufficient
information for this Court to determine he exhausted administrative remedies with respect
to the requests made in the instant Motion prior to the filing of this Motion, so Defendant
has not carried his burden in demonstrating he properly satisfied the exhaustion
requirement of § 3582(c)(1)(A).
5 Id.
6 No. 20-60473, 2020 WL 5249369, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2020).
7 See 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c) (emphasis added).
8 R. Docs. 44 & 44-1.
9 R. Doc. 46.
10 See United States v. Ezukanma, No. 15-254, 2021 WL 389827,at *2(N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2021) (though
defendant exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing his first motion for compassionate release, he
"was required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to submitting the [second] motion as well.").
Case 3:23-cr-00051-SDD-EWD Document 47 03/20/26 Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release11 is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction, subject to refiling if Defendant
exhausts his administrative remedies as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 19, 2026.
CHIEF JUDGE^ELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
11 R. Doc. 42.
Case 3:23-cr-00051-SDD-EWD Document 47 03/20/26 Page 3 of 3