Order — United States v. Tiairre Travonne Chaney (District of Oregon, Document 129, filed September 6, 2023)

Summary

This is an order in the District of Oregon, No. 3:15-cr-00324-HZ, United States of America against Tiairre Travonne Chaney. The Defendant moves to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the compassionate release provision. The Court finds the Defendant has not met the statute's exhaustion requirement. The Defendant argues that submitting a request to the Bureau of Prisons would be futile because the Defendant is in a county jail awaiting designation to a BOP facility, but the Court finds no evidence the Defendant undertook any effort to exhaust. The Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED. The order is dated September 6, 2023 and names Marco A. Hernández, United States District Judge.

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 3:15-cr-00324-HZ        Document 129       Filed 09/06/23     Page 1 of 3




                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                   No. 3:15-cr-00324-HZ

                      Plaintiff,                            ORDER

       v.

TIAIRRE TRAVONNE CHANEY,

                      Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

       Defendant Tiairre Chaney moves the Court to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A federal district court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment

once it has been imposed[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,

824–25 (2010). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), Congress provided an exception, commonly

known as compassionate release, to reduce a defendant’s sentence for “extraordinary and

compelling reasons.” Under the original statute, only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”) could file a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction on a defendant’s behalf.




1 – ORDER
         Case 3:15-cr-00324-HZ         Document 129        Filed 09/06/23      Page 2 of 3




United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). But with the passage of the First Step

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5191 (2018), Congress amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to

also allow a defendant, after first requesting that the BOP move for a reduction on his or her

behalf, to directly move the district court for a sentence reduction:

       [T]he court, . . . 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, may
       reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set forth in section
       3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—

               (i) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; [. . . ]

               and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
               issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

       Defendant has not met § 3582’s exhaustion requirement. “[Section] 3582(c)(1)(A)’s

administrative exhaustion requirement is mandatory and must be enforced when properly raised

by the government.” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021). Here, the parties

dispute whether Defendant has met this requirement. See Def. Decl. ¶ 18, ECF 125; Gov’t Resp.

5-6, ECF 127. Because Defendant is being held in a county jail awaiting designation to a BOP

facility, Defendant argues that submitting her request to BOP would be “futile” and no

exhaustion is required. Def. Decl. ¶¶ 17-18. But district courts in this circuit faced with this

question have required the defendant make some effort to exhaust. See United States v. Plaketta,

Case No.: 19CR1097 JM, 2022 WL 17363886, *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1. 2022) (finding the

defendant held in a non-BOP facility had failed to exhaust where there was “no evidence [he]

contacted BOP at all regarding his possible release options” and citing district court cases

requiring “defendants in non-BOP facilities to at least notify the BOP ‘in an attempt to pursue

administrative remedies before the court can determine exhaustion is futile.’”); U.S. v. Gonzalez,


2 – ORDER
         Case 3:15-cr-00324-HZ        Document 129       Filed 09/06/23    Page 3 of 3




451 F. Supp. 1194, 1196 (E.D. Wash. 2020) (finding the defendant had effectively exhausted her

administrative remedies where the defendant was being held in a county jail and the BOP had

informed the defendant that no one could process her compassionate release request because she

had not yet been designated to a BOP facility). Here, there is no evidence Defendant has

undertaken any such efforts. On this record, the Court finds that Defendant has not met her

burden in demonstrating that she has met the statute’s mandatory exhaustion requirement or that

it should be waived.

                                        CONCLUSION

       Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence [124] is DENIED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

       DATED:_______________________.
                  September 6, 2023


                                                    ____________________________________
                                                    MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
                                                    United States District Judge




3 – ORDER


File and source

File

129.pdf

Size

122,027 bytes

SHA-256

8540dd54b8f39c0aacf3770b9432f1f495e6146edaff9e35c42652a3da609a6b

Our copy

129.pdf

Original

No public link identified.