UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ (2020)

ORDER

Pending in this case is the defendant, John A. Martinez's, motion for compassionate release from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. (Docs. 859, 868, 870, 871).

Mr. Martinez, now forty-five, has been a Bureau of Prisons (“BoP”) inmate since 2005. He contends that his deteriorating physical condition and the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic justify the requested relief. The government opposes the motion (Doc. 873), and Mr. Martinez has replied (Doc. 874).

For the following reasons, I deny Mr. Martinez's motion.

Background

On September 8, 2005, the government charged Mr. Martinez and twenty other individuals, including his father and brother, with a fifty-count indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess, with the intent to distribute, cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana sourced from Mexico and Texas. (Doc. 1). This criminal enterprise began in or about 1997 and continued up to the date of the indictment. (Id.).

On May 19, 2006, a jury found Mr. Martinez guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute large quantities of marijuana and cocaine and three counts of unlawful use of communications facilities to set up agreements with other conspirators to sell the drugs within the Toledo, Ohio area.

Mr. Martinez's base offense level was 32, and his criminal history category III. (Doc. 544). Given Mr. Martinez's criminal history, the government submitted an information to establish his prior criminal convictions. (Doc. 381). The late Hon. David A. Katz imposed a 288-month sentence. (Doc. 505). Judge Katz later reduced that sentence to 240 months. (Id.).

The BoP calculates Mr. Martinez's release date as December 1, 2023. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an inmate, John A. Martinez, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Dec.7, 2020). Mr. Martinez is currently held at FCI Williamsburg in Salters, South Carolina. (Id.).

According to Mr. Martinez, he suffers from “bouts of high blood pressure, stomach problems, back problems, and blood in his urine and stool.” (Doc. 859, pgID 4919).

The government does not dispute that Mr. Martinez's medical conditions increase the risk of severe illness for persons who become infected with COVID-19. It argues, nonetheless, that I should deny Mr. Martinez's motion for relief for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Moreover, the government argues that I should not release Mr. Martinez because there is no evidence that he has a higher risk of exposure to COVID-19 while in federal custody. Regardless of whether that is so (or relevant), the government also contends that the § 3553(a) sentencing factors militate against his release. (Doc. 873). I agree.

Legal Standard

Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) states that a court:

may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original 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;

Pursuant to the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), the Sentencing Commission promulgated a policy statement setting out the criteria for sentence reduction in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 which require that:

(1)(A) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction;

(2) the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and

(3) the reduction is consistent with this policy statement.

Section 3553(a) lists the sentencing factors a court must consider as:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed--

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.

A. Mr. Martinez Has Exhausted His Administrative Remedies

On May 6, 2020, Mr. Martinez filed a compassionate release request with the BoP. (Doc. 868-1, pgID 5). BoP denied that motion. (Id.). The government contends that the BoP allowed Mr. Martinez to file a second compassionate release request and he therefore has administrative remedies available. (Doc. 873, pgID 4976). The government's point is that Mr. Martinez must have either 1) fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the BoP to bring a motion on the his behalf, or 2) thirty days must have lapsed since the receipt of such the warden received the request. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

I previously found that on August 7, 2020, Mr. Martinez submitted a second request for compassionate release to the BoP. (Minute Entry dated August 24, 2020). On September 6, 2020, the thirty-day waiting period lapsed. (Doc. 871).

Mr. Martinez has satisfied the administrative requirements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances

As discussed above, Mr. Martinez's medical conditions put him at greater risk of severe illness and, possibly, death were he to contract COVID-19.

Nonetheless, Mr. Martinez has failed to show that, due simply to the COVID-19 pandemic, he meets the requirements for compassionate relief. The CDC considers Mr. Martinez at significant risk of severely adverse effects from COVID-19. As of this date, however, FCI Williamsburg has had only two inmate and eight staff member COVID-19 cases, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Dec. 7, 2020). Mr. Martinez has not alleged that he has been, or is likely to be, exposed to infected inmates or staff members. In light of FCI Williamsburg's minimal incidence of COVID-19 infection, the institution appears to have effectively protected its inmates.

I also find that Mr. Martinez's age or physical health do not create “extraordinary and compelling circumstances.”

Whether Mr. Martinez is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health such that it would warrant his release is a fact-intensive analysis. See United States. v. Ebbers, 432 F.Supp.3d 421, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Although Mr. Martinez does not provide any treatment records to support his claim that he suffers from various medical conditions, the government does not dispute that he currently suffers from those medical conditions.

But Mr. Martinez has not established that his health condition is extraordinary and compelling because he has not shown that the institution has failed to treat his conditions adequately.

Having considered the parties’ arguments in light of the evidence of record, I find, moreover, that Mr. Martinez has not proven that his health has diminished to a degree that he cannot provide self-care within FCI Williamsburg.

To the contrary, what little evidence exists on this point tends to show that, notwithstanding Mr. Martinez's chronic ailments, he is able to care for himself within the prison. Moreover, the BoP has instituted extensive, and thus far, largely successful measures to protect inmates from COVID-19.

As importantly, applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors, I agree with the government that, despite Mr. Martinez's health problems, he has not shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under the § 3553(a) factors why I should grant him compassionate release.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Mr. Martinez's current 240-month sentence stems from his participation in a drug trafficking enterprise that was responsible for distributing massive quantities of drugs throughout the Toledo, Ohio area. (Doc. 418). Mr. Martinez's criminal enterprise lasted nearly a decade before he was caught. (Doc. 1). And his conviction is just the latest in Mr. Martinez's history of drug trafficking and distribution in Ohio.

The seriousness of Mr. Martinez's offense weighs heavily against granting the relief he requests.

2. Defendant's History and Characteristics

On December 1, 1995, Mr. Martinez was convicted of aggravated trafficking of drugs in Ohio, a third-degree felony under Ohio law. (Doc. 381). Mr. Martinez also has a history of drug abuse, driving while under the influence, controlled substance possession, and domestic violence. (Doc. 873, pgID 4977). Mr. Martinez's record suggests that for most of his adult life, he has been in possession, or under the influence, of illegal drugs. Not surprisingly, his behavior has repeatedly landed him in trouble with the law.

And Mr. Martinez did not learn any lessons from his past transgressions. If anything, he doubled down on his deleterious behavior and continued down a path of crime and criminal conduct.

This factor weighs against granting Mr. Martinez's motion for compassionate release.

3. Need for the Sentence to “Reflect the Seriousness of the Crime, to Promote Respect for the Law, and to Provide Just Punishment for the Offense”

A just punishment reflects the seriousness of criminal conduct and enhances respect for the law. A just punishment takes into account the consequences of a defendant's crimes, and their impact on the victims, others, and the community.

Every drug trafficking enterprise's immediate victims are the addicts it creates and fosters. Every drug trafficking enterprise creates a multitude of indirect victims, but the most and worst affected are the addict's children. Adults can turn away and move on. But a child, even when he or she becomes an adult, can never get free from what a parent's addiction does and has done.

Within the larger community, a drug trafficking enterprise's indirect victims are those whom the addict victimizes for the wherewithal for the drug he or she irresistibly craves. An addict-infested community loses vitality as gun crime and violence permeates block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood. Decay displaces vitality.

That is what Mr. Martinez and his confederates did for nearly a decade. Its effects last until this day: countless numbers of the descendants of those whose addiction Mr. Martinez created and fed find their way onto the criminal dockets of every court, including this court, in our community. Those descendants, in turn, extend that legacy down their own generations.

This factor strongly favors denying Mr. Martinez's motion for compassionate release.

4. Need “to Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct”

Mr. Martinez was a repeat offender. His criminal history leaves me with no doubt that if he were released, he would encounter many of the same dynamics, and scenarios that led to his past criminal conduct. At least for the time being, incarceration is the only way to deter and reduce the risk of further criminal conduct. Time and again Mr. Martinez has succumbed to the temptation of illegal conduct. I find no reason to believe that he would not be tempted to do so again. So, at the very least, continued incarceration postpones, even if it does not moderate, any potential impulse to traffic and distribute drugs again.

This § 3553(a) factor favors denial of his motion.

5. Present Danger to the Community

Mr. Martinez has a well-established history in the illegal drug trade. His prior interactions with the criminal justice system did not deter him from engaging in further criminal conduct. Unfortunately, Mr. Martinez's track record speaks volumes; granting his release now would very likely create a danger to the community.

Indeed, while Mr. Martinez argues that he is no longer a threat to public safety, he acknowledges that he has had three incident reports while incarcerated. (Doc. 874, pgID 4984). And while he argues that he has not had any incidents in the past six months, six months of good behavior is not enough repentance for a lengthy history of serious criminal conduct. (Id.).

At bottom, Mr. Martinez has a history of trafficking large quantities of drugs throughout the Toledo area. He has a history of disregarding the law despite his multiple interactions with the criminal justice system.

Good for Mr. Martinez for enrolling in various educational courses and staying drug free while incarcerated. But these are what society properly expects, not extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant early release from prison.

Mr. Martinez has not met his burden of proving that he merits compassionate release.

In any event, he is relatively young, and a relatively short period remains before he will have completed his sentence. Those factors, like those I have already discussed, weigh heavily against granting his motion.

It is, accordingly, hereby

ORDERED THAT the defendant's motion for compassionate release (Docs. 859, 868, 870, 871) be, and the same hereby is denied.

Any appeal from this order would have no plausible merit, as jurists of reason could not reasonably dispute either its result or its rationale.

So ordered.

JAMES G. CARR, Senior. U.S. District Judge