UNITED STATES v. Kevin Custer, Jonathan Neufeld, Christina Starkbaum, Renee A. Jarvis, Jose Compuesto, Timothy R. Johnston, Defendants.* (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Daveanan Sookdeo is an incarcerated individual serving a sentence of 60 months for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 371 and one count of making a false claim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. Sookdeo appeals the District Court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. The District Court rejected Sookdeo's argument that his heightened vulnerability to severe symptoms from COVID-19 (due to obesity) was an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting sentence reduction. The District Court also held that, because a sentence reduction would undermine the goals of Sookdeo's sentence, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against compassionate release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may, “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] Section 3553(a),” reduce a prisoner's term of imprisonment if the court finds “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”¹ It is within the discretion of a district court to determine what constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting sentence reduction.²

Here we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sookdeo failed to establish the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons. The record reflects that, at the time of the District Court's ruling, Sookdeo had already contracted COVID-19 and had been provided extensive and ostensibly appropriate medical care. Sookdeo disputes the accuracy of the prison record stating that he recovered from the virus by December 15, 2020 but does not dispute the significant reduction in the number and intensity of his symptoms in early December 2020. We also agree with the government's argument below (apparently endorsed by the District Court) that the risk of reinfection Sookdeo asserts is too speculative and unlikely to constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason.

Because the District Court appropriately held that Sookdeo did not establish the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting sentence reduction, we need not consider the District Court's Section 3553 analysis. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the District Court.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all Sookdeo's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the February 17, 2021 order of the District Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 235 (2d Cir. 2020).

2.   Brooker, 976 F. 3d at 236-37.