Order Granting Motion for Compassionate Release — United States v. Christina Smith (E.D. Cal., Dkt. 91)

Summary

Order granting a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (ECF No. 78), filed August 24, 2023 as Document 91 in United States v. Christina Smith, No. 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM-2. The order recites that Smith pleaded guilty on June 1, 2021 to conspiracy to commit mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and was sentenced on September 7, 2021 to 60 months of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release. It notes that the Government filed a statement of non-opposition and that her papers describe abuse by prison guards while at FCI Dublin. The Court finds extraordinary and compelling reasons, grants the motion, and reduces her sentences on Counts 1 and 2 to time served. The 36-month term of supervised release remains in effect.

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

Full text

     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 91 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 6


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 9                              FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                No. 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM-2
12                           Plaintiff,
13               v.                                               ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
                                                                  COMPASSIONATE RELEASE PURSUANT
14       CHRISTINA SMITH,                                         TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582
15                           Defendant.                           (ECF No. 78)
16

17                                                           I.

18                                              Procedural Background

19              On June 1, 2021, Defendant Christina Smith pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to

20   commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and one count of aggravated identity theft in

21   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) The Court sentenced Ms. Smith to 60

22   months of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release on September 7, 2021. (ECF No.

23   39.) She has now served over 50% of her sentence. (ECF No. 88 at 17.) On July 19, 2022, Ms.

24   Smith filed her first motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 but withdrew

25   it due to a change in her circumstances. (ECF Nos. 60, 76.) She filed a renewed motion for

26   compassionate release on April 18, 2023. (ECF No. 78.) Court-appointed counsel filed a

27   supplemental motion with accompanying exhibits on June 20, 2023. (ECF Nos. 83, 88.)1 In her

28   1
         Defense Counsel provided the motion and accompanying papers by email to the Court and the Government on June
                                                               1
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 91 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 6


 1   moving papers, Ms. Smith documents numerous instances of sexual assault and humiliation that

 2   she endured at the hands of prison guards while incarcerated at FCI Dublin. (ECF No. 88 at 5–9.)

 3   The Government filed a statement of non-opposition on July 31, 2023. (ECF No. 86.)

 4                                                           II.

 5                                                  Legal Standard

 6           “A federal court generally ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been

 7   imposed.’” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).

 8   Nevertheless, courts may grant a defendant compassionate release in “extraordinary cases.”

 9   United States v. Amezcua, 635 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1001 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Specifically, the First

10   Step Act (“FSA”) of 2018 permits federal courts to grant a defendant’s motion to reduce her

11   sentence if, after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), they find that “extraordinary and

12   compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The FSA also

13   states that a sentence reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by

14   the Sentencing Commission.” Since the enactment of the FSA, however, “the Sentencing

15   Commission has not yet issued a policy statement ‘applicable’ to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed

16   by a defendant.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). Therefore, while the

17   Sentencing Commission’s policy statement regarding “Reduction in Term of Imprisonment

18   Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),” located at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, “may inform a district court’s

19   discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant,” it is not binding. Id. “In the

20   absence of an applicable policy statement from the Sentencing Commission, the determination of
21   what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction lies squarely within

22   the district court’s discretion.” United States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2022). The

23   defendant bears the burden of establishing the elements necessary for compassionate release

24   under § 3582. See Amezcua, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 1003.

25   ///

26
     20, 2023 along with a request to seal pursuant to Local Rule 141. (See ECF No. 81.) The Court granted the request
27   in part, and, pursuant to that order, Defense Counsel filed Exhibits A, B, C, E, and F to the motion on the public
     docket. (ECF No. 83.) Due to an apparent oversight, Defense Counsel did not file the sealed motion and Exhibits D
28   and G until August 23, 2023. (ECF Nos. 88–90.)
                                                              2
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 91 Filed 08/24/23 Page 3 of 6


 1                                                   III.

 2                                               Discussion

 3   A.     Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

 4          Prior to filing a § 3582 motion in federal court, a defendant must first request that the

 5   Director of the Bureau of Prisons bring such a motion on her behalf. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

 6   Only when the Director declines to do so or fails to respond within thirty days, may the defendant

 7   pursue a remedy in the district court. Id.; United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281–82 (9th Cir.

 8   2021). Here, Ms. Smith asserts that the wardens of both FCI Dublin and FCI Danbury took no

 9   action on her requests for early release when she made them in 2022. (ECF No. 88 at 12.) The

10   Government does not dispute this assertion. Therefore, because more than thirty days have

11   elapsed since Ms. Smith asked the Bureau of Prisons to act on her behalf, she has exhausted her

12   administrative remedies under § 3582(c)(1)(A).

13   B.     Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons for Compassionate Release

14          While the Government stops short of endorsing Ms. Smith’s factual assertions regarding

15   her abuse, it notes that her “allegations do not appear frivolous.” (ECF No. 86 at 1.) Because of

16   this, the Court need not recount the details of Ms. Smith’s abuse at the hands of correctional

17   officers. Ms. Smith also notes that the Sentencing Commission has promulgated a new policy

18   statement, effective November 1, 2023, that explicitly lists a correctional officer’s sexual abuse as

19   an extraordinary and compelling reason justifying early release. See Sentencing Guidelines for

20   United States Courts, 88 Fed. Reg. 28254, 28255 (May 3, 2023) (to be codified at U.S.S.G. §
21   1B1.13(b)(4)). Ms. Smith has sufficiently demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for

22   the Court to entertain her § 3582 motion.

23   C.     Consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors

24          Even if a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for early

25   release, a court may grant a § 3582 motion only if doing so would be consistent with the

26   sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Amezcua, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 1015. In order
27   to impose a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary,” courts consider the

28   following factors:
                                                        3
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 91 Filed 08/24/23 Page 4 of 6


 1                   (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
                    characteristics of the defendant;
 2
                    (2) the need for the sentence imposed –
 3
                            (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
 4                          respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
                            offense;
 5
                            (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
 6
                            (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;
 7                          and

 8                          (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or
                            vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
 9                          treatment in the most effective manner;

10                  (3) the kinds of sentences available;

11                  (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for [the
                    applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category
12                  of defendant] . . .

13                  (5) any pertinent policy statement . . .

14                  (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
                    defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
15                  similar conduct; and

16                  (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

17

18   18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ms. Smith discusses the first factor in some depth, describing her troubled

19   childhood, her lifelong battle with mental illness, the non-violent nature of her crime, and her

20   successful completion of numerous recovery and rehabilitation programs during her incarceration.

21   (ECF No. 88 at 15–17.) She also notes that she presents a low risk of recidivism, has completed

22   over 50% of her term of imprisonment, and has paid more than $1,000 towards her restitution.

23   (Id. at 17.) The Government also points to Ms. Smith’s “good behavior while incarcerated and

24   the short amount of time left on her sentence” as factors that should weigh in favor of granting

25   her motion. (ECF No. 86 at 1.)

26          Ms. Smith’s most compelling argument, however, is that her experience while

27   incarcerated has exceeded any punishment that a court might consider just. (ECF No. 88 at 17–

28   18.) The Court agrees. See United States v. Brice, No. 13-cr-206-2, 2022 WL 17721031, at *4
                                                        4
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 91 Filed 08/24/23 Page 5 of 6


 1   (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2022) (“[F]ailing to take [the defendant’s] sexual assault into account risks

 2   ‘enhanc[ing], to a disproportionate degree, the level of punishment contemplated to be

 3   experienced by’ [the defendant] as a sentence for her crimes.”). Even referring to Ms. Smith’s

 4   abuse as “punishment” misses the mark – such conduct serves no legitimate sentencing objective.

 5          Considering the above – Ms. Smith’s abuse, the amount of time she has already served,

 6   her efforts at rehabilitation, her history, and the nature of her offense – the Court finds that

 7   reducing Ms. Smith’s sentence would be consistent with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

 8                                                     IV.

 9                                                Conclusion

10          Ms. Smith has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying the

11   reduction of her sentence and release from imprisonment.

12          Accordingly,

13          1.      Ms. Smith’s motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

14                  3582(c)(1)(A)(i), (ECF Nos. 78, 88), is granted.

15          2.      Ms. Smith’s sentences on Counts 1 and 2 are reduced to time served.

16          3.      Ms. Smith’s previously imposed term of supervised release is imposed and shall

17                  remain in full force and effect. Therefore, upon Ms. Smith’s release from

18                  imprisonment, she will be placed on supervised release for a term of 36 months on

19                  Count 1 and a term of 12 months on Count 2, to be served concurrently for a total

20                  term of 36 months. Upon her release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons,
21                  Ms. Smith must report in person to the probation office in the district to which she

22                  is released.

23          4.      While on supervised release, Ms. Smith must comply with all standard and special

24                  conditions of supervision, as detailed in her September 8, 2021 judgment. (ECF

25                  No. 39 at 4–5.)

26   ///
27   ///

28   ///
                                                         5
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 91 Filed 08/24/23 Page 6 of 6


 1        5.    Ms. Smith must make arrangements with her probation officer to pay the

 2              remainder of her court-ordered restitution as detailed in her September 8, 2021

 3              judgment. (ECF No. 39 at 6–8.)

 4

 5

 6   IT IS SO ORDERED.

 7     Dated:   August 24, 2023
                                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
                                                  6


File and source

File

91.pdf

Size

134,038 bytes

SHA-256

a7a6b460f9657dca7b838e2c275fca02cbe668495a3615812b189daa7b133e69

Our copy

91.pdf

Original

No public link identified.