Court filing
United States' Response in Opposition to Amber Rewis Bruey's Motion for Compassionate Release
No. 2:21-cr-00074 · Doc. 165 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 20 PageID
1623
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 2:21-cr-74-TPB-KCD
AMBER REWIS BRUEY
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
AMBER REWIS BRUEY’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
Amber Rewis Bruey previously pleaded guilty to sixteen different fraud-related
charges after she (and her husband) stole over $880,000 in COVID-relief funds. Bruey
used the stolen money to buy luxury items—and to pay off a prior restitution order
(for a different fraud that she committed). At sentencing, the Court calculated Bruey’s
Guidelines range as 63-78 months’ imprisonment. The Court varied downward and
sentenced Bruey to 48 months’ imprisonment. Bruey has been in custody for about
eight of those months.
This matter is now before the Court on Bruey’s motion for compassionate
release. At a high level, Bruey argues for release based on (1) her medical conditions
and the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s) alleged inadequate care of her, (2) the fact that her
children’s caregiver is facing medical challenges making caretaking difficult, and
(3) her rehabilitation while incarcerated. Because none of Bruey’s reasons—taken
alone or together—are “extraordinary and compelling” ones justifying her release, the
United States asks the Court to deny Bruey’s motion.
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 20 PageID
1624
I. BACKGROUND
Over the course of about a year in 2020 and 2021, Bruey and her co-defendant
husband (Anthony Bruey) fraudulently applied for dozens of COVID-relief loans. See
ECF No. 97 (PSR) at ¶¶ 21-40. Ultimately, they received $881,659.35 in loan proceeds
to which they were not entitled—though their intended loss was more than double that
($1,921,624.68). Id. at ¶ 40.
With their over $880,000 in stolen proceeds, the Brueys bought “luxury items,”
including a home in North Carolina and various (expensive) vehicles—such as cars,
ATVs, and dirt bikes. See ECF No. 134 at 11, 16-17; PSR ¶ 38. Bruey also paid off a
prior restitution order that she owed for a different fraud that she committed—one
involving her stealing over $20,000 from Florida public-assistance programs. See PSR
¶¶ 38, 66.
Based on her (more prominent) role in the offense, Bruey pleaded guilty to
sixteen different charges—including conspiring to commit wire fraud, committing
wire fraud, conspiring to commit money laundering, and committing illegal monetary
transactions. See ECF Nos. 3, 72. (Bruey’s husband pleaded guilty to just six counts.
See ECF No. 60.)
At sentencing, based on an offense level of 24 and a criminal-history category
of III, the Court calculated Bruey’s Guideline range as 63-78 months’ imprisonment.
See ECF No. 110 at 1. The Court varied downward and imposed a sentence of
2
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 20 PageID
1625
48 months’ imprisonment. See ECF No. 134 at 18; ECF No. 109 at 2. The Court
based its decision to vary downward on Bruey being a good mother to her four
children, having a potentially overstated criminal history, and being in an abusive
relationship. See ECF No. 134 at 15-16. But the Court had to weigh those mitigating
factors against the aggravating factors—including the size and scope of the fraud,
Bruey’s (leading) role in it, and the fact that this was not Bruey’s first fraud offense.
Id. at 16-17.
At the time of sentencing, the Court was keenly aware of what its 48-month
sentence would mean for Bruey’s family. Bruey had four minor children—with a fifth
on the way (she had gotten pregnant on release—after pleading guilty). See ECF
No. 133 at 58-59; see also ECF No. 163-1 at 26 (due date of February 25, 2023); ECF
No. 132 (pleaded guilty on March, 16, 2022). And both Bruey and her husband were
facing potential prison sentences. The Court noted the family situation was what
“bother[ed] [it] the most” about the case. See ECF No. 134 at 17. While wanting to
“salvage” the situation for Bruey’s children, the Court noted that was difficult when
Bruey chose to “engag[e] in this stealing and criminal behavior knowing she had four
little kids that could end up basically without parents.” Id. at 17-18. The Court noted
Bruey’s conduct was “just irresponsible and disregarding important family
responsibilities”; indeed, it recognized that there was simply “no need” for this
$800,000+ fraud—“[m]aybe a couple thousand, maybe 10,000, maybe 20,000, but
3
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 20 PageID
1626
800,000? That is called greed. This should be an episode out of that show American
Greed, because that, at the end of the day, is what it is, is greed.” Id. at 18.
In light of the nature of the crime, the Court could not agree “with the defense
request that [Bruey] should not do any time behind bars.” Id. The Court instead
concluded that a below-Guidelines sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment was
sufficient but not greater than necessary for the purposes of sentencing. Id. The Court
also “work[ed] with” Bruey on her report date—delaying it until after she gave birth
to her fifth child. Id.
The defense specifically asked the Court to consider staggering Bruey and her
husband’s sentences so that only one parent would be in custody at a time. But the
Court declined to do so. Id. at 19-20.
About six months after her sentencing—on January 21, 2023—Bruey gave birth
to her fifth child; this was a few weeks early (the child’s due date was February 25,
2023). See ECF No. 163-1 at 26; see also ECF No. 132 (sentencing on July 13, 2022).
Bruey officially entered BOP custody about four months after giving birth (on
May 12, 2023). See ECF No. 156. She thus has been in custody for about eight
months, and has a current projected release date of July 23, 2026. See BOP Inmate
Locator, available at: https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.
Bruey now brings a compassionate-release motion based on (1) her medical
conditions and the BOP’s alleged inadequate medical care, (2) the fact that her
4
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 20 PageID
1627
children’s caregiver is facing medical challenges making caretaking difficult, and
(3) her rehabilitation. See ECF No. 163. But none of Bruey’s reasons—taken alone or
together—are “extraordinary and compelling” ones justifying her release. The United
States thus asks the Court to deny Bruey’s compassionate-release motion.1
II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
A district court has no inherent authority to modify a sentence after it has been
imposed; a court “may do so only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United States
v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 606 (11th Cir. 2015). One statute authorizing a sentence
modification is the compassionate-release statute, which allows certain prisoners to
receive a reduced sentence based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Under the statute, a court may reduce a prisoner’s term of
imprisonment if the court determines that (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction,” (2) “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” and (3) the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors weigh in favor of a reduction. Id.; see also United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234,
1
Bruey also briefly mentions Amendment 821. See ECF No. 163 at 1, 9, 11. Should
the Court wish to consider Bruey’s request for relief pursuant to Amendment 821, the U.S.
Attorney’s Office respectfully asks that the Court adhere to the Order Regarding Amendment
821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 3:21-mc-1-TJC. That Order advances an
efficient and collaborative procedure to determine a defendant’s eligibility for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821.
5
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 20 PageID
1628
1237 (11th Cir. 2021).2 The defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to
relief. United States v. Green, 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014) (addressing a motion
for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
Because none of Bruey’s circumstances constitute “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” justifying her release, and because (even if they were) the
§ 3553(a) factors would not support a reduction of her sentence, the Court should deny
Bruey’s compassionate-release motion.
A. Bruey Cannot Establish “Extraordinary and Compelling” Reasons
The Sentencing Commission’s applicable policy statement defines
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” (and is binding on the Court). See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b); United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir. 2021). According
to the Sentencing Commission, “extraordinary and compelling reasons” may exist
where—for example—(1) the defendant is suffering from certain medical conditions
requiring specialized or long-term care which is not being provided by the BOP (and
without which the defendant is at serious risk of health deterioration); (2) the
defendant has a child, or parent, or similar immediate family member with a particular
need for caretaking; or (3) other circumstances that are “similar in gravity” to those
specifically delineated by the Sentencing Commission. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b).
The statute also carries an exhaustion requirement—requiring a prisoner to first bring
2
her compassionate-release motion to the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The
government will concede that Bruey did so. See ECF No. 163-1 at 4-13.
6
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 20 PageID
1629
None of Bruey’s circumstances—including her medical conditions, her
children’s caretaking needs, or her rehabilitation—constitute “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” justifying her release.
1. Bruey’s Medical Ailments Are Not An “Extraordinary and Compelling”
Reason Justifying Her Release
Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C), a defendant may establish “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” by showing that she is suffering from a medical condition
that requires “specialized” or “long-term” care that is not being provided by the BOP
(and without which she is at serious risk of health deterioration or death). Bruey has
made no such showing.
To be sure, Bruey suffers from various medical ailments. Bruey provides the
Court a lengthy list of medical ailments from which she is allegedly suffering.3 But
even assuming for a moment that those ailments are severe enough conditions to
require “specialized or long-term care” (a dubious assumption for many of them),
Bruey makes no showing that the BOP is not providing the necessary care.
3
These include: cardiomyopathy; reduced left ventricular ejection fraction;
hypokinesis of the heart muscle; high blood pressure; tachycardia; hypersensitivity lung
disease; chronic asthma; progressive, debilitating arthritis; debilitating scoliosis; degenerative
disc disease; cervical dystonia; fibromyalgia; chronic severe migraines; ADHD; allergies;
depression; and anxiety. See ECF No. 163 at 2. Notably, despite Bruey’s assertions to the
contrary, many of these conditions are long-standing (and were not caused by COVID or
pregnancy complications). Id. For example, arthritis, scoliosis, ADHD, and allergies are
clearly not caused by COVID or pregnancy complications. And others, although more
plausibly from COVID or pregnancy complications, are clearly not in Bruey’s case—for
example, she experienced migraines since she was a child. See PSR ¶ 88. As this
demonstrates, the Court must take all of Bruey’s allegations with a grain a salt.
7
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 20 PageID
1630
As best the government can tell, Bruey’s motion mostly relies on her
(1) depression, (2) cardiology issues, (3) back/pain issues, and (4) allergies/asthma
issues.4 See ECF No. 163. Bruey seems to assert that the care she is receiving from
the BOP for these conditions is inadequate, and that previously she had a long-term
and stable medication regimen that was working. But her claims are belied (in more
ways than one) by the record. The record shows that Bruey’s prior medical treatment
was not nearly as long-term or stable as she claims, and that her BOP treatment has
been similar to the care she has received prior to being in custody—including seeing
doctors and specialists, and trying different medication combinations. The table below
is illustrative of not-so-stable treatment Bruey received prior to entering custody:
Time Period Medications
While residing in Florida Obtained a medical-marijuana card and “was not taking any other
[2014-2020] prescribed medications.” PSR ¶ 94; but see id. at ¶ 91 (claiming to have
taken Wellbutrin for depression during this time).
Change-of-plea hearing Had to relinquish her medical-marijuana card in North Carolina; body
had a “difficult time adjusting.” PSR ¶ 94. Reported taking:
[March 16, 2022]
Zolpidea (for sleep). ECF No. 132 at 10.
Wellbutrin (for depression and anxiety). Id.
Ibuprofen (for scoliosis and arthritis). Id. at 10-11.
4
Bruey also mentions needing to get breastmilk to her youngest child. See ECF
No. 163 at 5-7. The BOP has been working with Bruey on this—and she is now able to pump
and store her breastmilk for the child. See, e.g., ECF No. 163-1 at 16-17. Regardless, Bruey’s
child is now nearly a year old—and thus may soon begin trying other nutritional sources. See,
e.g., ECF No. 163-1 at 34, 55. Further, Bruey’s mother has been able to get other breastmilk
milk from a breastmilk bank. See ECF No. 163 at 6. Given the improvements in Bruey being
able to get her own breastmilk to her child, the availability of other breastmilk for the child,
and the age of the child, this does not rise to the level of an “extraordinary and compelling”
reason justifying Bruey’s release.
8
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 9 of 20 PageID
1631
PSR Allergies: Reported taking Hydroxyzine HCL for itching relief.
[the weeks following the change- PSR ¶ 87.
of-plea hearing – Headaches: Reported using Topiramate and nasal spray
March/April/May 2022] Sumatriptan; was waiting on a prescription for a prophylactic
medication to prevent headaches (not treat them afterwards). Id.
¶ 88.
Back pain (scoliosis and arthritis): Reported taking Celebrex and
Loritab, and “occasionally” taking muscle relaxers Flexiril and
Methocarbamol (as needed). Id. ¶ 89.
Depression and anxiety: Reported taking Wellbutrin; suffered
“breakthrough symptoms” so added Doxepin and Klonopin (as
needed). Id. ¶ 91.
o (Between the initial and final PSR, Bruey switched from
Alprazolam to Klonopin. See id. at p. 84, ¶ 90.)
Sleep: Reported taking Ambien for sleep/headaches/anxiety.
Id. ¶ 91.
o (Between the initial and final PSR, Bruey switched from
Amitriptyline to Ambien. See id. at p. 84, ¶ 90.)
Asthma: Reported using a nebulizer, albuterol, and a Spiriva
inhaler. Id. ¶ 90.
Compassionate-release Allegedly taking “23” medications, including:
assertions about pre-custody Depression: An alleged “long-term medication regimen” of
life Wellbutrin, Topomax, Klonopin, and Buspar. ECF No. 163
at 3.
[prior to entering BOP custody on
Allergies: Trelegy inhaler and Singulair medication. Id. at 4.
May 12, 2023]
Back pain: “[S]everal prescription medications” (“ibuprofen and
muscle rub do not work”). Id. at 3.
Headaches: “migraine injections.” Id. at 3-4.
As the above table demonstrates, Bruey’s treatment and medications have been
a constantly moving target. Take, for example, the depression treatment that she has
received: As of the change-of-plea hearing, Bruey reported taking only Wellbutrin. At
the time of the initial PSR, she reported taking Wellbutrin and (as needed) Doxepin
and Alprazolam for breakthrough anxiety. Weeks later, at the time of the final PSR,
9
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 10 of 20 PageID
1632
she reported taking Wellbutrin and (as needed) Doxepin and Klonopin (not
Alprazolam). According to her compassionate-release motion, by the time she entered
BOP custody about a year later, she was on a “long-term” regimen of Wellbutrin,
Topomax, Klonopin, and Buspar (no Doxepin or Alprazolam). She (now) claims this
“long-term” regimen “was working.” But this, too, is belied by the record:
In May 2023—when entering BOP custody—Bruey reported to medical
personnel that she “takes Wellbutrin” for depression, but “it hasn’t helped and she is
open to trying a change.” See Gov. Ex. A (Bruey’s BOP Medical Records) at 56. The
BOP tried a changed; it prescribed DULoxetine (30 mg) and Divalproex (500 mg). Id.
at 57, 96. Trying new medications to get Bruey’s depression under control—when she
told medical personnel that she was “open to trying a change” because other
medications were not helping—is far from inadequate medical care. Indeed, not
changing the prescriptions that Bruey reported were not working would have been.
The next month (June 2023), when Bruey reported continuing depression
issues, the BOP increased her dosage of DULoxetine from 30 mg to 60 mg. Id. at 81,
95, 96, 98. At that point, her prescriptions for depression medications included
DULoxetine (60mg), Divalproex (500 mg), and busPlRone (10 mg). Id. at 95-96. By
the time that Bruey was seen in July 2023 for prescription refills, she “denie[d] any
issues with current medications.” Id. at 44. Later, in December, she requested an
“increased dose of buspirone,” and the BOP fulfilled her request—upping her
10
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 11 of 20 PageID
1633
busPIRone dosage from 10 mg to 20 mg. Id. at 2, 5-6. Put simply, Bruey has not
shown that the BOP has ignored—or not treated—her mental-health issues.5 To the
contrary, the BOP has been working with Bruey to try to get her on an effective
medication regime.
And one more point bears emphasizing with respect to Bruey’s depression:
Between giving birth, being separated from her newborn child, and entering prison, it
is not shocking that Bruey—upon entering custody—was reporting mental-health
issues. See Gov. Ex. A at 81. But BOP medical personnel have been trying to ensure
Bruey gets better trying different medications and different dosages. And this isn’t just
with respect to her depression. Take Bruey’s cardiology problems:
Upon entering BOP custody, Bruey reported that her cardiomyopathy was
causing a left ventricular ejection fraction of just 41%. Gov. Ex. A at 58. Her
(external) medical provider explained the potentially grim prognosis—noting that
“traditionally speaking 1/3 [of people] recover, 1/3 stay [the] same, [and] 1/3 get
5
In her motion, Bruey complains of low serotonin levels. See ECF No. 163 at 3. But
this serotonin test was done on June 14, 2023—just days after BOP medical personnel upped
the dosage on one of Bruey’s prescriptions. See Gov. Ex. A at 95, 185. Thus, these low
serotonin levels simply show why an increased prescription dosage may have been
appropriate; they do not establish whether the new dosage was or was not working (which
would take weeks to figure out). Notably, weeks later, Bruey denied any issues with her
current medications. Id. at 44. By December, records show she was still “doing well” on her
medications, but that she requested an “increased dose [of] buspirone.” Id. at 2. Upon
receiving this request, BOP upped Bruey’s busPIRone dosage. Id. at 5-6. Again, there is
simply no evidence of BOP ignoring—or not treating—Bruey’s mental-health issues.
11
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 12 of 20 PageID
1634
worse.” ECF No. 163-1 at 25; see also id. at 26 (explaining the same). The provider
noted the importance of staying on certain classes of medications until ejection fraction
was measured again, see id. at 25, but also told the BOP that his specific medication
recommendations had been “limited due to her breastfeeding” and he had
“recommendations . . . to change [Bruey’s] medication,” see Gov. Ex. A at 56, 58.
In September (i.e., after being in BOP custody a few months), Bruey saw a
cardiologist who reported that the exam of Bruey was “unremarkable” and her left
ventricular ejection fraction had “improved” to 45-50%. Id. at 216. Far from not being
treated and experiencing declining health, Bruey has been on medication, has been
seeing doctors and specialists, and—against the odds that her own prior doctor
provided—is improving. See id.; see also ECF No. 163-1 at 25, 26 (explaining that two-
thirds of people stay the same or get worse, while only one-third get better).
As to Bruey’s back issues/pain, she complains that the BOP has been
recommending ibuprofen and muscle rub, which she says do not help; she asserts that
she has “chronic long-term back and joint muscle issues” that require “several
prescription medications” and “possible surgery.” ECF No. 163 at 2, 3. A few things
are worth noting here:
First, as to the treatment (ibuprofen) that Bruey now asserts does not work, that
was the treatment she was taking as recently as her change-of-plea hearing. See ECF
No. 132 at 10-11. Further, contrary to her assertions that she is being instructed to
12
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 13 of 20 PageID
1635
simply take ibuprofen for her pain, her BOP medical records show that she is receiving
at least two prescription medications to help with her scoliosis issues. See Gov. Ex. A
at 5-6 (showing DULoxetine and Meloxicam prescriptions).
Second, as to the surgery that Bruey now says she may need, Bruey was
diagnosed with scoliosis when she was 12 but chose to “not undergo[] any surgeries”
because they “carr[y] the risk of paralysis.” PSR ¶ 89. Bruey does not explain what
has changed to suddenly require the surgery (aside from her wanting to get out of
custody). Indeed, her prior provider recommended Bruey wait “until her children are
grown” to have the surgery, given the “risk of paralysis.” See id. at p. 84, ¶ 88.
Notably, Bruey had a scoliosis exam while in custody, and the report from that exam
makes no mention of needing surgery. See Gov. Ex. A at 227.
And finally, as to Bruey’s allergies/asthma issues, these are long-standing
issues. See, e.g., ECF No. 163-1 at 46. BOP has given Bruey inhalers and other
medication to attempt to deal with these conditions. See, e.g., Gov. Ex. A at 5. There
is simply no evidence of severe untreated allergy or asthma issues in Bruey’s BOP
medical records. See, e.g., id. at 11-12, 41, 209, 230.
The fact of the matter is, no matter where Bruey finds herself—in BOP custody
or not—she would be experiencing medical issues. That is the nature of her ailments.
And, no matter where Bruey finds herself, she would be working with medical
personnel to try and find the right treatments for her ailments. Indeed, that is what
13
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 14 of 20 PageID
1636
she did for the months (and years) leading up to her entering BOP custody. Bruey’s
medications and treatment have been constantly changing and evolving. The changes
did not start, or suddenly stop, upon entering BOP custody. Every indication is that—
like the doctors before them—the doctors at the BOP are working with Bruey to find
the right treatments and medicines for her ailments. There is no indication that the
BOP is not providing Bruey the care that she needs, as would be required for Bruey to
show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying her release. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the government asks that the Court deny Bruey’s
motion to the extent it relies on her medical ailments.
2. The Bruey Children’s Caretaker Needs Are Not An “Extraordinary and
Compelling” Reason Justifying Bruey’s Release
Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A), a defendant may establish “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” justifying a sentence reduction by showing that the caregiver
of her minor children has died or become incapacitated. Once more, Bruey has made
no such showing.
Bruey alleges that her five children “have several medical issues” requiring
frequent medical appointments, and that her mother (their caretaker) has “several
chronic and debilitating medical conditions” which make it hard for her to get the
children to their appointments. ECF No. 163 at 1. More specifically, Bruey asserts
that her mother suffers from muscular dystrophy, which she alleges has gotten so
14
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 15 of 20 PageID
1637
severe as to render her mother legally blind. Id. at 7. Bruey also notes that the
caretaking situation has put a strain on her mother’s finances. Id. at 8.
The government is certainly sympathetic to the situation in which Bruey’s
children and mother find themselves. But Bruey has not even alleged (let alone shown)
that her mother is “incapacitated.” Rather, Bruey simply alleges that it is difficult (and
expensive) for her mother to care for the five children. But that is not the standard for
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons. And for good reason—as it is true in nearly
every case. While a tremendous burden has undoubtedly been placed on Bruey’s
children and mother due to Bruey’s crime, that is always the case when parents choose
to commit crimes. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, Case No. 17-cr-60223-BLOOM,
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168725, at *13 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2021) (“[L]oved ones are
often adversely impacted by a family member’s incarceration, and must make
necessary and inconvenient life adjustments during that individual’s incarceration.
These often-unavoidable consequences, however, do not create extraordinary
circumstances[.]”).
Even if the Court were to find Bruey’s mother “incapacitated”—which there is
no evidence (or even allegation) of—it should exercise its discretion to deny Bruey’s
request for relief based on the fact that (1) the Court already considered the caretaking
issue at sentencing when fashioning a (below-Guidelines) sentence, and (2) Bruey has
not shown that there are no other available caretakers. Taking these in turn:
15
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 16 of 20 PageID
1638
First, the Court already considered at sentencing the family circumstances at
play in this case; indeed, the Court noted that it was what “bother[ed it] the most”
about the case. See ECF No. 134 at 17. While wanting to “salvage” the situation for
Bruey’s children, the Court noted that that was difficult when Bruey chose to “engag[e]
in this stealing and criminal behavior knowing she had four little kids that could end
up basically without parents.” Id. at 17-18. The Court called Bruey’s conduct “just
irresponsible.” Id. at 18. Given the nature of the crime, the Court explained that Bruey
had to do “time behind bars.” Id. And it rejected the idea of staggering Bruey and her
husband’s sentences so that only one parent would be in custody at a time. Id. at 19-
20. Nothing has changed to impact the Court’s analysis. The Court knew (at
sentencing) that the Bruey kids—and their caretaking relatives—would be left in a
tough situation. But it also knew that Bruey’s conduct was worthy of punishment.
That is still true today.
Second, although not technically a requirement under § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A), the
Court should also consider whether Bruey’s mother is the only available caregiver.
See, e.g., United States v. Streeter, CASE NO: 3:18-cr-76-TJC-LLL, 2023 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3629, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2023) (noting that the availability of another
caregiver can inform the Court’s exercise of its discretion and collecting similar cases).
Bruey has not shown that her mother is the only available caregiver. For
example, the PSR mentions a sister of Bruey’s (Marissa Higginbotham) who also lives
16
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 17 of 20 PageID
1639
in North Carolina, has a “close relationship” with Bruey, and clearly cares about
Bruey’s children. See PSR ¶¶ 76, 77, 86. Bruey provides no explanation for why
Ms. Higginbotham could not be a caretaker for her children.
Given that Bruey has not established an incapacitated caretaker for her children,
she is not eligible for relief under § 1B1.13(b)(3).6 But even if Bruey could show an
incapacitated caretaker, the Court should exercise its discretion to deny Bruey’s
motion because it already considered the caretaking issue when it fashioned Bruey’s
sentence and—additionally—Bruey has not shown that she is the only available
caregiver.
3. Bruey’s Rehabilitation Is Not An “Extraordinary and Compelling”
Reason Justifying Her Release
Finally, Bruey notes that she has been “diligently programming” since her
surrender—working as a GED and ESL teacher-aide at the prison, and taking many
different classes. See ECF No. 163 at 1. Bruey’s dedication to rehabilitation is
6
The government (like Bruey) has focused on Bruey’s children’s caretaker needs. But
at times Bruey adds that she needs to care for her mother, too. See, e.g., ECF No. 163 at 8,
11. Under § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C), “[t]he incapacitation of a defendant’s parent when the
defendant would be the only available caregiver” could constitute “extraordinary and
compelling” circumstances. Thus, under both subsections (A) and (C), Bruey would need to
make a showing that her mother is “incapacitated” (which she cannot do). Moreover, Bruey
being the “only available caretaker” is relevant to both subsections (indeed, it is required under
subsection (C)). Given the similarities in what Bruey would have to show under either
subsection (A) or (C), the government simply addresses Bruey’s caretaking arguments once.
Bruey’s compassionate-release motion fails under both subsections (A) and (C), as she has
not shown that her mother is “incapacitated” or that she is the “only available caretaker.”
17
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 18 of 20 PageID
1640
commendable, but it “is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason”
justifying her release. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d).
And taking Bruey’s (eight months of) rehabilitation together with her medical
problems (which BOP is treating), and her children’s caretaking needs (which occur in
every case where parents are sent to prison), does not render it “extraordinary and
compelling.”
Because none of Bruey’s reasons—taken alone or together—are “extraordinary
and compelling” ones, the government asks the Court to deny Bruey’s compassionate-
release motion.
B. The § 3553(a) Factors Do Not Support a Sentence Reduction
Before granting a sentence reduction, the Court (in addition to finding
“extraordinary and compelling reasons”) must find that the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors weigh in favor of a reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also Tinker, 14
F.4th at 1237. The Court already did a thorough balancing of the § 3553(a) factors at
Bruey’s sentencing, and none of Bruey’s compassionate-release allegations disturb the
Court’s prior, careful analysis that a 48-month sentence was warranted.
This was a serious fraud. Bruey stole over $800,000 and intended to steal more
than $1.9M. Bruey took a lead role in the fraud. And this was not Bruey’s first fraud
offense—indeed, she committed this fraud while on probation for another fraud. This
fraud wasn’t committed to pay for medical expenses or basic necessities; it was a fraud
18
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 19 of 20 PageID
1641
of pure greed—with the proceeds going to luxury items. Bruey’s 48-month sentence
appropriately accounts for these aggravating factors. Her (below-Guidelines) sentence
also takes into account the mitigating facts—including Bruey’s family circumstances.
The Court knew about the four (soon-to-be-five) children at sentencing and considered
their needs, but it also knew that this was a crime worthy of prison time. Nothing has
changed to impact the Court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the
Court should deny Bruey’s request for a sentence reduction.
Because Bruey has not established “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” and
because—even if she had—the § 3553(a) factors would not support reducing her
sentence, the government respectfully asks the Court to deny Bruey’s compassionate-
release motion.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER HANDBERG
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Chelsey Hanson
Chelsey Hanson
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney No. 218
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 461-2200
Facsimile: (239) 461-2219
E-mail: Chelsey.Hanson@usdoj.gov
U.S. v. Amber Rewis Bruey Case No. 2:21-cr-74-TPB-KCD
19
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 165 Filed 01/16/24 Page 20 of 20 PageID
1642
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 16, 2024, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing were sent by United States Mail
to the following non-CM/ECF participant:
Amber Rewis Bruey (#63267-509)
FPC Alderson
Federal Prison Camp
Glen Ray Rd. Box A
Alderson, WV 24910
/s/ Chelsey Hanson
Chelsey Hanson
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney No. 218
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 461-2200
Facsimile: (239) 461-2219
E-mail: Chelsey.Hanson@usdoj.gov
20
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.393556.165.0.pdf
- Size
- 194,214 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7017b5d7eaa7abea1e7a6b5213557f4aeac71cea626f2a202988d0fe909854a1
- Original
- PACER (login required)