Memorandum Endorsement — United States v. Lewis, 21-cr-729 (LAK), compassionate release

Summary

Memorandum Endorsement, Document 141, filed 03/03/25 in 21-cr-729 (LAK), United States v. Lewis, Southern District of New York, two pages, by the United States District Judge on a handwritten submission that is mostly illegible in the scan. Defendant moves for a sentence reduction, release to home confinement, or compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Court says the BOP Director has not filed a motion and she has not submitted a request to the warden, and under United States v. Roberts it cannot waive the exhaustion requirement. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice to renewal after she exhausts administrative rights or the 30 days from the warden's receipt of a request lapse. It is dated March 3, 2025, and a mailing note to her at a federal facility in Danbury is partly legible.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

ocument 141 =~ Filed 03/03/25 Page1of2

TENIO ENDORSED

mace

Fea 0

oy
ene
f

Fi-24 - 1495 a Ape ihe... Clildcen. chock

Pea Sons. Om uu. Gieodianl Tre  akiernod on. S00. Coy AB Tg

Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK Document141 Filed 03/03/25 Page 2of2

Memorandum Endorsement = United States v. Lewis, 21-cr-729 (LAK)

Defendant moves for a sentence reduction, release to home confinement, or
compassionate release. “A court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed
except pursuant to statute.” United States v. Gotti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(), the compassionate release statute, a court may reduce a term
of imprisonment if it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such reduction,
provided that the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553 do not outweigh those extraordinary and
compelling reasons. See United States v. Merlo, No. 17-CR-0738 (LAK), 2020 WL 3001039, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2020).

A court may grant compassionate release only “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.’ Here, the BOP Director has not filed a motion and defendant has not
submitted a request for compassionate release to the warden of the institution where she is
incarcerated. For the reasons set forth in United States v. Roberts, 612 F. Supp. 3d 351 (S.D.N.Y.
2020), the Court lacks the authority to waive the statutory exhaustion requirement.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice to renewal after
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 after the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a
request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2025

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY F ILED
DOC #:

DATE FILED: 3/3/95

An) 7
Lewis A. Kaptan

United States DistrictYudge

209. Charlotte Lewis, Reg. (8006-504
copier MALLeO TU ee 23 Vq Pombricced,

Chawbers of Judge Napian Danbury, CT O68
edge

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.571079.141.0.pdf

Size

165,559 bytes

SHA-256

7622943cec5ee8dc189a8ccd0eb77fc68819d0cc5ff9bf71d1b657407e800348

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.571079.141.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)