Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release — United States v. Amber Rewis Bruey

Full text

Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 172 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1922



                         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,

      Defendant.
________________________________/

                       ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
                    MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

       This matter is before the Court on Defendant Amber Rewis Bruey’s motion for

compassionate release, filed pro se on January 2, 2024. (Doc. 163). On January 16,

2024, the Government filed its response. (Docs. 166; 167). On January 22, 2024,

Defendant filed a supplemental motion (Doc. 167) and an unauthorized reply (Doc.

168), and on January 25, 2024, she filed a supplement to her unauthorized reply (Doc.

169). 1 After reviewing the motion, response, reply, supplements, case file, and the

record, the Court finds as follows:

       On July 13, 2022, the Court sentenced Defendant to 48 months’ imprisonment

after she pleaded guilty to sixteen different fraud-related charges after she and her

husband stole over $880,000 in COVID-relief funds. 2 The Court notes that the

guideline range was calculated at 63-78 months imprisonment, but the Court varied

downward to impose a 48-month sentence. The Court also delayed Defendant’s report



1 In the interest of judicial economy, although the reply and supplements were unauthorized,

the Court considers them when ruling on the motion for compassionate release.
2 Defendant used the stolen money to buy luxury items and to pay off a prior restitution order

(for a different fraud that she had committed).
                                          Page 1 of 5
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 172 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1923



date until May 12, 2023, several months after she gave birth to her fifth child. 3

Defendant, who has been in custody for around ten months, is currently incarcerated

at Alderson FPC in West Virginia, and she is projected to be released on June 23,

2026.

        In her motion, Defendant requests that the Court modify or reduce her sentence

to release her from federal prison. Specifically, Defendant claims that (1) she suffers

from a variety of chronic health conditions, (2) her children’s caregiver is facing

medical challenges, making caretaking difficult, and (3) rehabilitation. Defendant

seeks release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), sometimes referred to as “compassionate

release.”

        A district court is not free to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been

imposed, except upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”); or upon

motion by the defendant, after she has fully exhausted all administrative rights to

appeal a failure of the BOP to bring a motion on his behalf, or 30 days has elapsed

from receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is

earlier. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Celedon, 353 F. App’x 278,

280 (11th Cir. 2009). To warrant a reduction of his sentence in this case, Defendant

must present “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

        After reviewing the applicable law and facts presented here, the Court finds

that Defendant is not entitled to relief because she has not demonstrated any


3 The timing of this child’s birth conclusively demonstrates that the child was conceived after

the date that both parents had been indicted on serious federal criminal charges. In other
words, both parents chose to have this fifth child knowing full well that each of them had
serious federal criminal charges pending against them for stealing several hundreds of
thousands of dollars, and one or both of them were likely going to prison.
                                           Page 2 of 5
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 172 Filed 03/14/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1924



extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a modification of her sentence based

on her medical conditions. 4 To be sure, Defendant suffers from various medical

conditions. The Court was aware at sentencing that Defendant suffered from many of

these conditions. Importantly here, though, Defendant has not shown that any of her

alleged medical conditions constitute a serious physical or medical condition that

substantially diminishes her ability to provide self-care within the correctional facility

and from which she is not expected to recover. She makes no showing that BOP is not

providing the necessary care, and BOP records actually reflect that her treatment has

been similar to the care she received prior to being in custody, including seeing doctors

and specialists, and trying different medication combinations. The records therefore

show that Defendant’s medical issues are being closely monitored and treated by

medical staff at the prison.

       Defendant also alleges that her five children “have several medical issues”

requiring frequent appointments, and that their caretaker (Defendant’s mother) has

several conditions herself that make it difficult for her to get the children to their

appointments. 5 “[L]oved ones are often adversely impacted by a family member’s

incarceration, and must make necessary and inconvenient life adjustments during



4 In USSG § 1B1.13, the Sentencing Commission has set specific examples of “extraordinary

and compelling reasons” that may qualify a defendant for compassionate release, including: (1)
the defendant suffers from a terminal illness or a serious physical or medical condition that
substantially diminishes his ability to provide self-care and from which the defendant is not
expected to recover; (2) the defendant is at least 65 years old and experiencing a serious
deterioration in his physical or mental health, and she has served at least 10 years or 75% of
his prison sentence; (3) particular family circumstances; and (4) other reasons as determined
by the BOP.
5 To the extent Defendant asserts her need to care for her mother as an independent caretaker

basis, she would need to make a showing that her mother is incapacitated and that Defendant
is the only available caretaker, but Defendant has done neither.
                                          Page 3 of 5
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 172 Filed 03/14/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1925



that individual’s incarceration. These often-unavoidable consequences, however, do

not create extraordinary circumstances[.]” United States v. Gonzalez, No. 17-cr-60333-

BLOOM, 2021 WL 4066897, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2021). Although her mother may

be facing challenges, Defendant has neither alleged nor shown that her mother is

incapacitated. In addition, the Court also considered the caretaking issue at sentencing

when imposing its below-guidelines sentence, and Defendant has not shown that there

are no other available caretakers. See United States v. Streeter, No. 3:18-cr-76-TJC-

LLL, 2023 WL 130751, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2023) (Corrigan, J.) (noting that courts

often consider whether the inmate is the only feasible caretaker and collecting cases).

      Alleged rehabilitation also does not justify release. Although Defendant’s

participation as a GED and ESL teacher-aide at the prison and classes is

commendable, rehabilitation is not, by itself, extraordinary and compelling as

understood in the statute.

      Finally, even if Defendant could establish an extraordinary or compelling

reason for compassionate release, the applicable Section 3553(a) factors weigh against

granting compassionate release in this case. Considering the § 3553 factors, including

Defendant’s criminal history and characteristics, the Court finds that release would

not be appropriate here. This was a serious fraud in which Defendant took a lead role.

Moreover, this was not her first fraud offense – she committed the crimes while on

probation for another fraud. In addition, the fraud was not committed to pay for

medical expenses or basic necessities for Defendant or her family – it was pure greed,

with the proceeds going toward luxury items. Her below-guideline sentence took into

account the mitigating factors, such as Defendant’s family circumstances, but the

                                       Page 4 of 5
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 172 Filed 03/14/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1926



Court ultimately concluded that this was a crime that required prison time. Nothing

has changed. Given the seriousness of Defendant’s conduct, denying the motion

promotes respect for the law, affords adequate deterrence, and continues to provide

just punishment for the offense.

      Consequently, Defendant’s motion for compassionate release is hereby

DENIED.

      The Court notes that Defendant briefly mentions Amendment 821. The brief

reference is not sufficient to seek affirmative relief on this basis, but Defendant may

file a separate motion if she believes that she is eligible for a sentence reduction. Such

motion would be handled in the normal course of procedure in this District.

      DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Fort Myers, Florida, this 14th day of

March, 2024.




                                         TOM BARBER
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                        Page 5 of 5


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.393556.172.0.pdf

Size

127,822 bytes

SHA-256

cded2509819a77ae472410a9340ebbf6269a08568c4e4d081ee8a0cb3897c77d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.393556.172.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)