USA v. Balster

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RYAN LEE BALSTER
Defendant.
CR. 16-50078-JLV
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Ryan Balster, appearing pro se,1 filed a motion for
compassionate release. 	(Docket 106). 	Pursuant to the May 1, 2020, Standing
Order 20-06, the Federal Public Defender for the Districts of South Dakota and
North Dakota (“FPD”) and the United States Attorney for the District of South
Dakota filed records, submissions and briefing on Mr. Balster’s motion.
(Dockets 140, 145 and 146). 	For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion
is denied.
STANDING ORDER 20-6
Standing Order 20-06,2 captioned “Establishing a Procedure for
Compassionate Release Motions Under the First Step Act,” put in place “a
procedure for submission and consideration of compassionate release motions
1 Balster was represented by Molly Quinn; however, she terminated her
representation on June 29, 2021.
2 See https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/socraa (“SO 20-06”).
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

2
under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(d)(l)(A), in the wake of the spread of
the COVID-19 virus into the federal prison system.” 	(SO 20-06 at p. 1). 	Under
the order, the FPD is automatically “appointed to represent all defendants in
criminal cases: (a) who previously were determined to be entitled to
appointment of counsel or who are now indigent; and (b) who may be eligible to
seek compassionate release under the First Step Act.” 	Id. ¶ 1. 	The initial step
for the FPD is to
communicate 	a 	recommendation 	to 	inmates 	interested 	in
compassionate release that they immediately submit requests for
compassionate release to the warden of the facility in which they are
detained, if they have not done so already. 	These communications
will include the recommendation that the prisoner describe their
proposed release plan.
Id. ¶ 2.
By the standing order, the FPD and the United States Attorney for the
District of South Dakota are “to place [the defendant] into one of four
categories[.]” 	Id. at p. 2 ¶ 4. 	Those categories are:
a. High Priority Cases where there exists some combination of:
(i) medical issues that correspond to the categories outlined in
the commentary to U.S.S.G. § l.B.1.13; (ii) recognized COVID-19
risk 	factors 	in 	the 	inmate’s 	medical 	history; 	and/or
(iii) imprisonment in a federal facility known to have a serious
COVID-19 outbreak in its population. . . .
b. Intermediate 	Priority 	Cases 	where 	identified 	medical 	issues
and/or COVID-19 risk factors and/or institutional concerns are
less extreme than High Priority Cases.
c. 	Low Priority Cases where there are no identifiable medical issues
or COVID-19 risk factors.
d. Unknown 	Risk 	Cases 	where 	there 	is 	a 	lack 	of 	sufficient
information to categorize the request for compassionate release.
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Id. 	The FPD and U.S. Attorney are to “immediately report the categorization
. . . to the Clerk of Court and the Probation Office.” 	Id.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2018, Ryan Balster was sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of 240 months and a life term of supervised release for his conviction for
attempted enticement of a minor using the internet. 	(Docket 121). 	According
to Mr. Balster’s presentence report (“PSR”), “[b]ased upon a total offense level of
34 and a criminal history category of V, the guideline imprisonment range is
235 months to 293 months.” 	(Docket 115 ¶ 62).
Mr. Balster is currently an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in
Fairton, New Jersey (“FCI Fairton”). 	(Docket 140). 	According to the United
States, Mr. Balster has a scheduled release date of June 6, 2033. 	(Docket
146 at p. 1). 	According to the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) website, Mr. Balster’s
release date is June 6, 2033.3
MR. BALSTER’S CLASSIFICATION
On June 15, 2021, the FPD and the U.S. Attorney filed a notice of
categorization of compassionate release motion. 	(Docket 143). 	They jointly
“agree that this case should be categorized as a Low Priority case.” 	Id.
3 See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/
mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp#inmate_results.
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

4
ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
Because sentences are final judgments, a “court may not modify a term
of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 	In 2018,
Congress passed the First Step Act (“FSA”), which amended 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) to permit inmates in specified circumstances to file motions in
the court where they were convicted seeking compassionate release.
Compassionate release provides a narrow path for defendants with
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” to leave prison early. 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 	Such a sentence must comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and “applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 	The Sentencing Commission’s policy
statement, which was adopted before the FSA, requires both “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” and that “the defendant is not a danger to the safety
of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(1) (U.S. Sentencing Comm. 2018). 	The inmate bears the
burden to establish that compassionate release is warranted. 	United States v.
Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2016). 	The district court is not required to
investigate possible avenues for relief or to develop the record in support of a
motion. 	United States v. Banderas, 39 F.4th 1059 (8th Cir. 2022).
Congress did not define what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling.”
28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 	Rather, the Sentencing Commission was directed to
promulgate “the criteria to be applied and a list of specific” extraordinary and
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

5
compelling examples. 	Id. 	Prior to Congress passing the FSA, the Sentencing
Commission limited “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to four scenarios
which are the consideration of the defendant’s (1) terminal illness,
(2) debilitating physical or mental health condition, (3) advanced age and
deteriorating health in combination with the amount of time served and
(4) compelling family circumstances. 	Id. 	There was a fifth catch-all category
for an “extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination
with, the reasons described” as determined by the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons. 	U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). 	These categories have not been
updated since December 2018 when FSA became law.4
As a result, district courts are left to determine whether the policy
statement of the Sentencing Commission that was in existence when the FSA
was passed still applies; see Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389,
2404 (2022) (“the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening
changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence
pursuant to the First Step Act”). 	The purpose of the First Step Act is to expand
the availability of compassionate release based on judicial findings of
extraordinary and compelling reasons without being restricted to those
categories identified by the Sentencing Commission or the rationale used by
the BOP before the passage of the First Step Act. 	It is clear Congress wishes to
4 Until recently the United States Sentencing Commission lacked a
quorum, and the newly established commission has not amended the United
States Sentencing Guidelines.
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

6
“[i]ncreas[e] the [u]se . . . of [c]ompassionate [r]elease” by allowing district
courts to grant petitions “consistent with applicable policy statements” from
the Sentencing Commission. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
A defendant may not bring a motion for compassionate release until 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).
In this case, it is unclear if Mr. Balster exhausted the administrative
relief provision contemplated by § 3582(c)(1)(A). 	Mr. Balster claims he
submitted a request for compassionate release to FCI Fairton’s Warden in
2020 but fails to provide support for this claim. 	(Docket 140). 	Furthermore,
the government asserts it inquired with the BOP regarding the existence of
such a request. 	(Docket 146 at p. 2). 	The BOP indicated it has no request
within their electronic records system. 	Id. 	The court will review Mr. Balster’s
motion for compassionate release on its merits regardless.
B. Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release
Mr. Balster makes two arguments in support of his request for
compassionate release. 	(Docket 140 at p. 5). 	First, Mr. Balster argues his
medical conditions justifies compassionate release. 	Second, he argues the
court should release him so he may care for his mother.
In support of his first argument, Mr. Balster requests release because he
suffers from “high cholesterol, sleep apnea, autism spectrum disorder, anxiety,
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

7
depression and psychological issues.” 	(Docket 140 at p. 5). 	He providers no
evidence in support of his claims.5 Mr. Balster does not allege he requires
release due to an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.
Mr. Balster’s medical records confirm he suffers from generalized
anxiety, an unspecific developmental disorder of scholastic skill and Autism
Spectrum Disorder Without Intellectual Impairment (“Asperger”). 	(Docket
145 at p. 20). 	The records also reveal he has been administered various
medications to treat anxiety, depression and other mental health concerns. 	Id.
at p. 97.
Mr. Balster fails to establish he is suffering from a serious physical or
medical condition or experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health
because of the aging process that substantially diminishes his ability to provide
self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he is
not expected to recover or that he is suffering from serious functional or
cognitive impairment. 	The court finds that Mr. Balster’s medical claims are
neither extraordinary nor compelling reasons that justify compassionate
release.
In support of his second argument, Mr. Balster argues he needs to be
released “to help [his] mother out because she is ill, which is a muscle disease.”
(Docket 140 at p. 5). 	Mr. Balster does not provide evidence of his mother’s
medical condition or any evidence he is needed as her caretaker.
5 Mr. Balster states he attached a “proposed release plan, additional
medical information, vaccine, psychological” documents [Docket 140 at p.5],
but the court has not received the documents.
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

8
Although not unsympathetic, the court does not find Mr. Balster’s family
circumstances to be “extraordinary and compelling” reasons that justify
compassionate release.
C. 3553(a) Factors
The 3553(a) sentencing factors further show that compassionate release
is not warranted. These factors include:
1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant;
2. the need for the sentence imposed—
a. to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
b. to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
c. 	to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
d. to 	provide 	the 	defendant 	with 	needed 	educational 	or
vocational 	training, 	medical 	care, 	or 	other 	correctional
treatment in the most effective manner[.]
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
In Mr. Balster’s case, the nature and circumstances of the offense—
attempted enticement of a minor using the internet—is extremely serious and
would have been harmful and devastating to the intended victim if Mr.
Balster’s plan had come to fruition. 	18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). 	The court does not
minimize Mr. Balster’s conduct just because an actual minor was not involved.
Mr. Balster’s unlawful conduct started on May 22, 2016, by him
“pick[ing] [a] phone number randomly” and sending inappropriate messages.
(Docket 115 ¶ 5). 	The owner replied that she was 15 years old to which Mr.
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

9
Balster stated that “don’t matter” and sent a picture of his penis and requested
a picture of the 15-year-old girl. 	Id. 	The next day officers conducted an
investigation in which an agent texted Mr. Balster that the persona was a 15-
year-old girl. 	Id. 	Mr. Balster replied regarding being horny, masturbating and
meeting to have sex. 	Id. 	During the conversation, Mr. Balster sent the persona
a picture of himself, a picture of an erect penis and information regarding his
home address. 	Id. 	Mr. Balster set up a meeting time and location with the
persona. 	Id. 	Mr. Balster arrived at the arranged location and admitted he was
there to “have sex with her.” 	Id.
The history and characteristics of the defendant require the court to
consider the defendant as a whole person. 	In 2009, Mr. Balster was convicted
for traveling with the intent to engage in illicit sexual contact. 	(Docket 115 at
pp. 7-8). 	The details of the prior offense were nearly identical, in which Mr.
Balster admitted he knew the victim was 12 years old and admitted he showed
her his face, torso and genitals on the webcam. 	Id. ¶ 25. 	While Mr. Balster
was serving his term of supervised release, he was terminated from his
program for exhibiting poor boundaries with other clients by repeatedly talking
about sexual contact with another BMS client; for being untruthful about
texting harassing messages that were sexual in nature to a female; for
accessing a computer for online services and possessing a cell phone with
texting and internet access without permission. 	Id. 	Mr. Balster was
successfully discharged from the South Dakota Developmental Center’s sexual
interest and life skills program. 	Id. 	Mr. Balster continued to show significant
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

10
improvement, however, on May 27, 2016, a petition to revoke supervised was
filed in CR. 08-40060 alleging Mr. Balster engaged in sexual contact with a
minor. 	As part of the plea agreement in the instant offense, the government
agreed to dismiss the petition. 	The court is concerned by Mr. Balster’s inability
to learn from his prior sentence, as Mr. Balster was on supervised release when
he committed the current offense.
Mr. Balster had a “total offense level of 34 and a criminal history
category of V, [thus,] the guideline imprisonment range is 235 months to
293 months.” 	(Docket 115 ¶ 62). 	Mr. Balster’s sentence was 240 months, near
the bottom of the guidelines range. 	(Dockets 115 ¶ 62 and 121).
There was no evidence provided that Mr. Balster participated in any BOP
treatment programs or any other programing available.
After careful consideration, the court concludes Mr. Balster’s sentence of
240 months continues to be appropriate for the seriousness of the crime to
which he pled guilty.
ORDER
Based upon the above analysis it is
ORDERED that defendant’s motion for compassionate release (Docket
140) is denied.
Dated February 28, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:16-cr-50078-JLV Document 147 Filed 02/28/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>