Court filing
Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion — United States v. Dara Buck
No. 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR · Doc. 54 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 54 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CR422-065
)
DARA BUCK )
)
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S SECOND 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) MOTION
Defendant Dara Buck, 1 for the second time, moves for early release under 18
U.S.C. §_3582(c)(1)(A). (Doc. 53.) This time she focuses exclusively on family
circumstances—the need to care for her three minor children—as her “extraordinary
and compelling reason.” 2 But, this Court should continue to deny her motion.
First, Buck has not established an “extraordinary and compelling reason”
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and application note 1. See United States v. Bryant, 996
F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). Under the
guidelines, “[t]he death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor
1 Buck is currently located at FPC Alderson with a projected release date of
March 13, 2026. See BOP Inmate Locator, available at
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2023). Projected release date
indicates release from BOP custody and may not reflect date by which BOP will
consider defendant for placement in a halfway house, a residential reentry center or
home confinement.
2 In her motion, Buck mentions that her 21-year-old daughter is currently
caring for her three other sisters, who are 17, 13, and 10. (Doc. 53 at 1.) However,
the PSR notes that the 17-year-old daughter was living with her father in Arizona
and that Buck is court-ordered to pay him child support. (PSR ¶ 40.)
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 54 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 6
child or minor children” qualifies as an “extraordinary and compelling reason.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, app. n. 1(C)(i). While Buck contends that her aunt “abandoned”
her children “due to her physical and mental health,” this does not allege either
“death” or “incapacitation.” 3 (Doc. 53 at 1.) Moreover, Buck provides no evidence
supporting this allegation or the severity of her aunt’s supposed conditions. See
United States v. Granda, 852 F. App’x 442, 446 (11th Cir. 2021) (“What’s more, it was
Granda’s burden to show that his circumstances warranted a reduction.”); see also
United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013).
Further, Buck explains that her 21-year-old daughter is now caring for the
minor children. (Doc. 53 at 1.) Again, Buck does not allege that her 21-year-old
daughter is currently dead or incapacitated—only that she “could be facing prison
time” in the future. (Doc. 53 at 1.) Cf. United States v. Oneal, No. 20-13533, 2021
WL 5894858, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2021) (Ҥ 1B1.13 provides that an extraordinary
and compelling reason exists if the defendant ‘is’ suffering from a serious physical or
medical condition that diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care in
prison or from which he is not expected to recover, not if the defendant is at risk of
suffering from such a condition.”); United States v. Moreno, No. 21-14411, 2022 WL
4127451, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 12, 2022) (holding that “health conditions that might
make a COVID-19 infection worse do not rise to the level of an extraordinary and
compelling reason”). Also, the fact that Buck does not “trust her judgment” is not a
3 “Incapacitation” is defined as “[t]he quality, state, or condition of being
disabled or lacking legal capacity.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
2
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 54 Filed 08/29/23 Page 3 of 6
qualifying reason under § 1B1.13, application note 1(C)(i). And, like her other
allegations, Buck provides no evidence in support of these claims.
Additionally, Buck states that she does not have a relationship with her
parents. (Doc. 53 at 1.) Her PSR indicates, however, that while she “has had little
contact with her mother,” she “maintains a positive relationship with her father with
regular monthly contact.” (PSR ¶ 38.) The PSR also states that Buck has an adult
brother. (PSR ¶ 38.) As such, Buck fails to demonstrate that there is no one else
available to care for her minor children. See United States v. Spencer, No. CR 418-
171, 2021 WL 43999, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2021) (“The Court finds that Defendant
has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he is the only family member caregiver
capable of carrying for his children.”); United States v. Bowers, No. CR 220-030, 2021
WL 1187080, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2021) (holding defendant failed to demonstrate
“extraordinary and compelling” reason where he admitted “he is not the only
available caregiver for his children”); United States v. Lambert, No. CR 116-079, 2020
WL 5949627, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2020) (denying Lambert’s motion for
compassionate release because he presented no verifiable evidence of incapacitation
for the caregiver of his minor children).
Lastly, this Court just denied Buck’s first § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion on June 30,
2023. (Doc. 52.) There, the Court explained that, based on its analysis of the 18
U.S.C. §3553(a) factors, it would not grant a sentence reduction, even if Buck had
established an “extraordinary and compelling reason.” (Doc. 52 at 6-7.) See United
States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 2021); United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th
3
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 54 Filed 08/29/23 Page 4 of 6
1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021). The Court noted that “Buck pled guilty to [] a serious
crime for which she received a substantial but justified sentence.” (Doc. 52 at 7.)
Even so, “Buck’s sentence was far less than it could have been but for the generous
plea offer from the Government and the Court’s granting of a downward variance.”
(Doc. 52 at 7.) See United States v. Lewis, No. 21-10100, 2021 WL 4955849, at *1
(11th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion denying §
3582(c)(1)(A) when it considered that defendant “‘already benefitted from’ a
downward variance”). It concluded that, after “review[ing] all of the Section 3553(a)
factors,” Buck’s motion should be denied. See United States v. Deorio, No. 20-13723,
2021 WL 3671127, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2021) (“[A] district court is not required
to articulate its reasoning in great detail, as long as the record reflects that it
considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors.”).
Only two months later, Buck does nothing to rebut the Court’s § 3553(a)
analysis. To the contrary, the Court’s prior analysis, as well as the government’s
previous § 3553(a) argument which is incorporated here (Doc. 49 at 12-15), continues
to support the denial of Buck’s current sentence reduction request.
4
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 54 Filed 08/29/23 Page 5 of 6
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that
Defendant’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion (Doc. 53) be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
JILL E. STEINBERG
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Justin G. Davids
Justin G. Davids
Assistant United States Attorney
Missouri Bar No. 57661
justin.davids@usdoj.gov
P.O. Box 8970
Savannah, Georgia 31412
(912) 652-4422
5
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 54 Filed 08/29/23 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On August 29, 2023, I filed this response through this Court’s ECF system
and served all parties through the Notice of Electronic Filing. In addition, my office
mailed a paper copy to:
Dara Buck, Reg. No. 10895-510
FPC Alderson
Federal Prison Camp
Inmate Legal Mail
Glen Ray Rd. Box A
Alderson, West Virginia 24910
JILL E. STEINBERG
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Justin G. Davids
Justin G. Davids
Assistant United States Attorney
Missouri Bar No. 57661
justin.davids@usdoj.gov
Post Office Box 8970
Savannah, Georgia 31412
(912) 652-4422
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gasd.87047.54.0.pdf
- Size
- 131,267 bytes
- SHA-256
- 42c07c78b5206f88cd50d9d8a047abfb8f6a26c5e7a4077115d2ede42b075ba9
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.gasd.87047.54.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)