We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DISTRICT COURT GRANTS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE FROM HOME CONFINEMENT

It can be challenging to explain to prisoners that what one district judge may decide on a compassionate release motion has almost no relevance to (and provides no precedential authority for) what another judge may decide in identical circumstances. What’s more, there are 677 district judge positions in the country (not including all of the district judges on senior status, who still carry a 25% caseload or better). That means there are well over 700 different opinions on how discretion should be exercised in considering a compassionate release motion.

Still, it has almost been an article of faith that a prisoner already on home confinement is not going to get a district court to grant her compassionate release motion. Home confinement, after all, is to freedom what O’Douls is to beer. Not the real thing, but it sure beats having nothing to drink at all. Compassionate release (actually “sentence reduction” under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)) requires that you show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” why your sentence should be reduced. When you’re already at home, your circumstances have to be truly extraordinary and compelling in order to get your sentence terminated early.

However, a Montana district court last week handed down what Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman called “an interesting new federal court order granting a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) sentence reduction motion based in part on the difficulties associated with extended home confinement.” In so doing, the judge turned the article of faith on its head.

Linda Reynolds, a 75-year-old career offender, had been doing her 262-month sentence for methamphetamine distribution since 2012 (and had served 53% of it). She was sent home on CARES Act home confinement two years ago after serving 114 months of her sentence. A few months ago, she filed a compassionate release motion arguing that her rehabilitation, age, medical conditions, unusually long sentence, and difficulties of extended home confinement together warrant termination of her sentence.

Last week, the district court granted her motion. The court found that Linda had completed several courses and certificates while in prison, maintained employment “throughout most of her time on home confinement,” and has stayed sober (no mean feat for someone who has battled addiction her whole adult life).

Two of the court’s analyses stood out. First, the district court resorted to the Sentencing Commission’s JSIN (Judiciary Sentencing Information) platform that compares sentences nationwide for people with the same guideline, offense level, and criminal history category. JSIN (available for free on the Sentencing Commission website) reported that courts imposed an average term of 188 months and median of 180 months, “nearly seven years shorter than Reynolds’s term.” In fact, the government had recommended a sentence of 188 – 235 months back in 2012. The district court found that Linda’s sentence – despite being what Guidelines Chapter 4B called for – “appears to be unusually long compared to her co-defendants, similarly situated defendants, and the sentence recommended by the government.”

Second, the court found that the terms and conditions of Linda’s home confinement had prevented her “from receiving needed medical care and have increased [her] out-of-pocket medical expenses.” Her status of still being in BOP custody although on home confinement prevented her from enrolling in Medicare and obtaining low-income housing, which would have put her in town and cut her transportation costs for getting to her work training program, meeting her counselor twice a week, and mak[ing] her four monthly UAs [urinalyses for drug use]. Reynolds’s status on home confinement also has prevented Reynolds from obtaining a checking account, from engaging in work that would produce supplemental income, and from being able to fully interact with her family members and support system.”

While Linda’s “age, medical conditions, home confinement status, and long sentence would not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling when viewed individually,” the Court held, “[t]hese factors appear, however, to rise to that level when viewed together… The Court finds that these factors interact with each other to create extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce Linda’s sentence.”

Sentencing Policy and the Law, Notable new compassionate release ruling finding home confinement difficulties justified sentence reduction (April 30, 2024)

United States v. Reynolds, Case No 4:12-cr-0084 (D.Mont, April 30, 2024)

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judiciary Sentencing Information (JSIN)

– Thomas L. Root