UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BELTON (2023)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

Before the Court is Defendant Marcus' Belton's second motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Court will deny the motion.

On October 14, 2013, Oakland police officers arrested Belton after observing him conducting hand-to-hand drug transactions. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. They discovered a loaded .45-caliber Taurus pistol in his waistband; a bag containing cocaine base, multiple pills of MDMA, and a digital scale; and additional ammunition in his car. Id. at 4. The government first charged Belton with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), ECF No. 2, and then added two counts of possessing cocaine and cocaine base near a school with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860, as well as one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), ECF No. 86. After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Belton on all four counts, ECF No. 177, and the Court sentenced him to 240 months incarceration. ECF No. 202. Belton is currently serving his sentence at Lompoc United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, with a projected release date of May 9, 2031. ECF No. 366 at 7. He is 51 years old.

Belton filed his first motion for compassionate release on October 9, 2020. ECF No. 344. He based his motion largely on several of his medical conditions, including chronic kidney disease, Type 2 diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, high cholesterol, and essential and secondary hypertension, all of which he argued “make him particularly susceptible to injury or death from COVID-19.” ECF No. 344. Belton further claimed that Lompoc's infrastructure – which includes open-bar cells and congregate common areas – limits the Bureau of Prisons' ability to enforce social distancing and hygiene guidelines to prevent transmission and puts individuals with medical conditions like Belton at heightened risk. Id. at 8-9.

The Court denied the motion, finding that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against release. ECF No. 352 at 3. The Section 3553(a) factors the Court considered included the “nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the need for the sentence imposed” “to reflect the seriousness of the offense,” and “the need for the sentence imposed” “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2). Belton appealed this Court's order denying the motion, ECF No. 353, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, ECF No. 360.

Belton filed his second motion on June 29, 2022. In his second motion, Belton once more argues that his “obesity, hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease and other conditions” render him especially vulnerable to COVID-19, ECF No. 371 at 7, and that his hypertension “is serious and potentially fatal even in the absence of COVID-19,” ECF No. 364 at 18. He also argues that Lompoc has insufficient COVID-19 quarantine and testing protocols, which puts him at greater risk of contracting COVID-19. Id. at 20-21, 29-30. Belton further contends that he is not a danger to the community because he did not threaten or use violence in connection with his offense, id. 24, that he has served sufficient time to achieve the objectives of his sentence, id. 24-25, and that he “has dedicated himself to the rehabilitation of himself and others,” id. 25.

The Court may order the modification of an imposed prison sentence if, “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a modification, so long as the adjusted sentence remains “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In addition, the Court may consider whether “the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(2) (U.S. Sentencing Comm'n 2018).¹

As with Belton's previous motion for compassionate release, Belton and the government dispute whether Belton's health conditions present extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. Compare ECF No. 364 at 16-19 with ECF No. 366 at 11-18. The parties once more dispute the extent to which the Lompoc has adequate COVID-19 protocols in relation to Belton's health risks.² Compare ECF No. 364 at 20-21 with ECF No. 366 at 8. The Court again acknowledges the seriousness of Belton's prior diagnosis and hospitalization for COVID-19 and agrees that he faces more serious risks from reinfection based on his medical conditions. But the Court need not resolve the parties' disputes because the Section 3553(a) factors – “nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the need for the sentence imposed” “to reflect the seriousness of the offense,” and “the need for the sentence imposed” “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant” – continue to weigh against release. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2).

First, the Court again finds that Belton's crimes were serious and dangerous. Officers arrested Belton after witnessing him engage in hand-to-hand drug sales, and he was found to possess 5.7 grams of powdered cocaine, 23 grams of base cocaine, 8.55 grams of marijuana and 1.62 grams of methamphetamine. ECF No. 194 at 4-5. He was carrying a loaded weapon and conducting his drug sales within 1,000 feet of a school. Id. Second, Belton has a long history of criminal conduct, much of which involved conduct similar to his present convictions. Id. at 8-12. Of his ten prior convictions before this offense, five were drug convictions, and one also involved possession of a firearm. Id. He has been incarcerated or under supervision for almost the entirety of his adult life, and he has not been deterred by even lengthy prior sentences. Id. Third, nothing in Belton's motion acknowledges the seriousness of his crimes or the effect of his actions on the community, nor demonstrates rehabilitation. He states in his motion that he “has dedicated himself to the rehabilitation of himself and others,” ECF No. 364 at 25, but these efforts appear to consist of 91 hours of programming taken over a period of approximately three years, or about 35 minutes per week, see id. at 33. While programming in any amount is to be commended, these efforts do not allow the Court to conclude that continued incarceration is no longer necessary “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), or that defendant no longer poses a “danger to the safety of any other person,” see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(2). Lastly, “[t]he length of the sentence remaining is an additional factor to consider in any compassionate release analysis.” United States v. Connell, No. 18-cr-00281-RS-1, 2020 WL 2315858, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2020); see also United States v. Shayota, No. 15-cr-00264-LHK-1, 2020 WL 2733993, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2020); United States v. Marquez, No. 1:19-cr-00173, 2020 WL 6044319, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020). At this point, Belton has served less than half his sentence, and the Court finds that a reduction of more than half is not warranted based on the 3553(a) factors discussed in this order. The Court continues to recognize that a 240-month sentence is long but reiterates that it imposed that sentence advisedly.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Ninth Circuit recently held that Section 1B1.13 is not an “applicable policy statement” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) with respect to compassionate release motions filed by defendants. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, Section 1B1.13 is “not binding” but may nonetheless “inform a district court's discretion.” Id.

2.   The government further argues that Belton has not satisfied the mandatory exhaustion requirement because he failed to submit a request for release to his warden or to the Bureau of Prisons in advance of the filing instant motion. Belton appended such a request to his reply. ECF No. 371 at 18. However, the request is dated July 27, 2022, and the motion was filed on June 29, 2022. See ECF No. 364. The request, however, notes that it is Belton's “second request to Warden B. Birkholz, for Compassionate release sent on or about June 6, 2022.” ECF No. 371 at 18. Because the Court denies the motion on other grounds, it need not reach this issue.

JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge