Full text
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10/15/2025
Plaintiff,
21-cr-440-02 (NSR)
-against-
OPINION & ORDER
ANDREA AYERS
Defendant.
NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:
Pro se Defendant Andrea Ayers (“Defendant” or “Ayers”) moves for a sentence reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), citing the allegedly “unduly punitive, inhumane, and
psychologically damaging conditions” she experienced while housed at the Metropolitan
Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn. (ECF No. 151, Motion (“Mot.) at 1.) Defendant
specifically requests that, in light of the atypical and extreme conditions of confinement she
allegedly endured at the MDC, the Court reduce her total term of imprisonment or, alternatively,
convert the remainder of her custodial sentence to supervised release or home confinement. (Id. at
2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for a downward
sentencing variance.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
On April 2024, the Court sentenced Defendant Andrea Ayers to 42 months’ imprisonment
following her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a scheme to
defraud a federal pandemic relief program. (See ECF No. 147, Judgment.) Between June and July
2020, Andrea Ayers, along with co-defendants Alicia Ayers and Traci Proctor, engaged in a
coordinated scheme to defraud the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Economic Injury
1
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 2 of 7
Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program. (Compl. at 4-8.) They conspired to obtain federal relief funds
by submitting fraudulent online applications using the personal information of approximately 300
individuals. (Id. at 4.) The scheme involved transmitting false representations to the SBA through
interstate electronic communications, including fabricated information about business ownership,
employee numbers, and revenues. (Id.) In total, approximately 315 fraudulent applications were
submitted, seeking over $3 million and resulting in the disbursement of roughly $1.69 million,
portions of which were kicked back to the Defendants. (Id. at 4–5.)
Defendant voluntarily surrendered in August 2024 and was housed at the MDC in Brooklyn
for approximately eight months while awaiting judgment before being transferred to Alderson
Federal Prison Camp (“FPC”). (Mot. at 2.) In her motion, Defendant alleges that during her time
at MDC she endured “unduly punitive, inhumane, and psychologically damaging conditions,”
including lockdowns, extreme temperature fluctuations, and inadequate hygiene and medical care.
(Id. at 1.) As attachments to her motion, Ayers submitted copies of what appears to be a BP-8
Informal Resolution form and a BP-9 “Request for Administrative Remedy” that she had filed
with the warden on March 7, 2025, seeking application of FSA time credits. (Id. at 4-5.) While her
BP-8 form was signed by the Unit Manager and Counselor, her attached copy of the BP-9 neither
included a response nor signature from the Warden. (Id. at 5.) Ayers is currently serving her
sentence at Alderson FPC, with a projected release date of June 6, 2027. (Opp. at 3.)
B. Procedural History
The Government filed a complaint against Ms. Ayers on March 21, 2021, for conspiracy
to commit wire fraud (Count I), wire fraud (Count II), false statements (Count III), and aggravated
identity theft (Count IV). (ECF No. 2, Complaint (“Compl.”) at 1-3.) On April 26, 2024, the Court
imposed a total term of 42 months’ imprisonment for Ms. Ayers (See generally Judgment.)
Defendant submitted several letters to the Court over the course of the proceedings, addressing
2
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 3 of 7
issues related to her finances (ECF Nos. 127–128), medical accommodations (ECF No. 139), the
Court’s final judgment (ECF No. 144), and the calculation of First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits
(ECF No. 148). Most recently, on September 8, 2025, Defendant filed an instant pro se motion
seeking a reduction of her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), based on the conditions of
her confinement at MDC. (See generally Mot.) On September 24, 2025, the Government filed a
letter in opposition. (ECF No. 157, Opposition (“Opp.”))
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the FSA, a court may reduce a term of
imprisonment only after the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies, and only if, after
considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), it finds that “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” warrant such a reduction and that the reduction is consistent with applicable Sentencing
Commission policy statements. See United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2021);
United States v. Keitt, 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d Cir. 2021) (finding that both “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” and support of Section 3553(a) factors are required for relief.) The exhaustion
requirement is mandatory and not subject to judicial waiver. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638–
39 (2016). Once exhaustion is satisfied, the Court must determine whether the defendant has
demonstrated: (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons; (2) that a reduction is consistent with
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (the relevant Sentencing Guidelines policy statement), which is now binding
and requires, among other things, that the defendant not pose a danger to the community; and (3)
that the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of a reduction. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.13(a)(2), (b).
Application of the § 3553(a) factors requires the Court to consider, among other things,
“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,”
the need “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment,” “to afford adequate deterrence,” and “to protect the public from further crimes
3
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 4 of 7
of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Daugerdas, 613 F. Supp. 3d 807, 812
(S.D.N.Y. 2020). The defendant bears the burden of satisfying each of these requirements. See
United States v. Butler, 970 F.2d 1017, 1026 (2d Cir. 1992).
DISCUSSION
The Court DENIES Andrea Ayers’s motion for a sentence reduction because she has not
exhausted administrative remedies, fails to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh against reduction in her sentence.
A. No Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Ayers fails to demonstrate she exhausted administrative remedies. Under § 3582(c)(1)(A),
a defendant may seek a sentence reduction only after either (1) fully exhausting administrative
appeals within the BOP regarding a sentence reduction, or (2) thirty days have passed since the
warden received such a request. United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 123 (2d Cir. 2021). Under
BOP regulations, an inmate must follow a four-step process to exhaust administrative remedies:
(1) raise the issue informally with staff via a BP-8; (2) file a BP-9 to the warden; (3) if denied or
if the warden fails to respond after 20 days, appeal to the Regional Director using a BP-10; and (4)
if still denied, file a final appeal to the BOP’s Central Office via a BP-11. United States v.
D'Acunto, No. 18 CR 14 (VM), 2020 WL 1904007, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2020); Dov v.
Warden, No. 21 CIV. 8570 (SLC), 2022 WL 17730112, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022) (“If the
request is denied or the Warden fails to respond within 20 days, the third step is to appeal to the
BOP Regional Director.”) Although Ayers attached a BP-8 Informal Resolution form and a BP-9
“Request for Administrative Remedy,” she stopped at step two. Her BP-9 attachment was unsigned
by the warden; therefore, Ayers should have proceeded to filing a BP-10 appeal to the Regional
Director and then a BP-11 to the BOP’s Central Office.
4
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 5 of 7
Even under the thirty-day-lapse provision, assuming the warden received Ayers’s BP-9
form and this attachment was the final submission of the form, Ayers still fails to satisfy the
requirements under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Her BP-9 form—unsigned by the warden and limited to the
computation of First Step Act program credits—did not identify any “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” that would warrant a sentence reduction or excuse compliance with the
exhaustion requirement. Because Ayers neither submitted a qualifying sentence reduction request,
as discussed in greater length below, nor pursued the BOP’s administrative appeal process to
completion, her motion must be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
B. Failure to Show Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons for Sentence Reduction
Even if Ayers had exhausted administrative remedies, she has not demonstrated any
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” to permit a sentence reduction. Ayers’s allegations consist
primarily of generalized descriptions of MDC conditions, such as lockdowns, temperature
fluctuations, hygiene issues, including rodent infestations and unsanitary cell conditions, and
delayed medical conditions. (See Mot. at 2.) However, such conditions do not constitute
“extraordinary and compelling” circumstances especially since Ayers did no allege that these
conditions continued after her transfer to Alderson FPC. See United States v. Sarnelli, No. 22
CRIM. 116 (NRB), 2025 WL 268678, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2025) (rejecting defendant’s claim
that restrictive lockdown conditions and limited outdoor time constituted “extraordinary and
compelling” circumstances where such circumstances did not continue after his facility transfer.)
While courts in this Circuit have acknowledged the harsh conditions of confinement at the MDC,
those conditions—standing alone—have been found insufficient to warrant a sentence reduction
where they were already accounted for at the time of sentencing. See United States v. O’Berry, No.
18 Cr. 277 (PAE), 2024 WL 5244936, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2024) (finding that a defendant
could not rely on harsh MDC conditions to justify a sentence reduction where such conditions had
5
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 6 of 7
already been considered at sentencing). Here, the Court similarly took those conditions into
account when imposing Ayers’s sentence. Although the Advisory Guidelines range was 63 to 78
months of imprisonment, the Court sentenced Ayers to 42 months—a term substantially below the
Guidelines range. (ECF 85, Final Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) at 26.)
Ayers’s allegations are also conclusory and nonspecific; she fails to connect her claims of
inadequate medical care, exposure to violence, or lockdown conditions at the MDC to any
particularized events or identifiable injuries. See United States v. Farmer, No. 19-CR-427 (LTS),
2022 WL 47517 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2022) (finding that “generalized statements about the
conditions of confinement do not constitute compelling reasons for compassionate release.”) Ayers
further fails to allege that she was subjected to sexual or physical abuse while in custody within
the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(4), nor does she provide individualized evidence of harm or
family circumstances. Therefore, Defendant has not demonstrated any “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction.
C. The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors Weigh Against Sentence Reduction
The Court further finds that the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh
against granting Ayers early release. Application of § 3553(a) requires the Court to consider the
offense’s nature, the defendant’s history, and the need for punishment, deterrence, respect for the
law, and public protection. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ayers’s total offense level was 26, and her
advisory Guidelines range 63 to 78 months. (PSR ¶¶ 42, 92.) Although the Court imposed a
sentence of 42 months—well below the guideline range—the seriousness of her conduct remains
substantial. Over the course of several weeks in 2020, Ayers organized and led a conspiracy that
used the identities of approximately 300 individuals to submit more than 300 fraudulent EIDL
applications, seeking over $3 million in pandemic-relief funds. (PSR ¶¶ 18–20, 23.) The scheme
resulted in actual losses exceeding $1.69 million to the U.S. Small Business Administration, funds
6
Case 7:21-cr-00440-NSR Document 158 Filed 10/15/25 Page 7 of 7
intended to assist small businesses struggling during the COVID-19 crisis. (Id.) Her role as a leader
who recruited participants and collected kickbacks demonstrates both planning and exploitation of
a program designed to help those in need. See United States v. Broadus, 2020 WL 3001040, at 3
(S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2020) (denying compassionate release where a defendant’s leadership in a
serious fraud undermined respect for the law).
While Ayers has no prior criminal convictions and complied with pretrial supervision,
those mitigating factors were already considered at sentencing. A further reduction would not
reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or
afford adequate deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Given the magnitude of the loss, the
number of victims, and Ayers’s leadership role in orchestrating the fraud, sentence reduction
would undermine these statutory purposes. Accordingly, the § 3553(a) factors weigh strongly
against reducing her sentence.
In sum, the Court DENIES Ayers’s motion for sentence reduction because she has not
exhausted administrative remedies, fails to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances
warranting a downward sentencing variance, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh against a
sentence reduction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Andrea Ayers’s motion for a downward sentencing
variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
to mail a copy of this Opinion to the pro se Defendant (#35921509) at FPC Alderson, Unit B1,
P.O. Box A, Alderson, WV 24910 and to show proof of service on the docket.
Dated: October 15, 2025
White Plains, New York
7