UNITED STATES v. HAUGHAWOUT (2020)

ORDER

Pending in this case is the defendant, Sandra L. Haughawout'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. (Doc. 35, 39).

Mrs. Haughawout, now seventy-two, has been an inmate of the Bureau of Prisons since 2018. She contends that her deteriorating physical condition and the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic justify the requested relief. The government opposes the motion (Doc. 41), and Mrs. Haughawout has replied (Doc. 48).

For the following reasons, I deny Mrs. Haughawout's motion.

Background

On February 4, 2019, Mrs. Haughawout pled guilty to Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373. (Doc. 33, pgID 224-25). I sentenced her to 60 months in prison. (Id.).

Mrs. Haughawout's charge stemmed from her soliciting and paying $8,000 to an undercover law enforcement officer. She paid the officer, posing as a hitman, to murder her former son-in-law. (Doc. 27, pgID 102).

Mrs. Haughawout's total offense level was 34, and her criminal history was category I. (Doc. 27). The guideline range for Mrs. Haughawout's offense was 151-188 months in prison, but the statutory maximum sentence for her offense was 60 months. (Doc. 29, pgID 7).

At sentencing, I imposed a 60-month sentence on the Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence charge. (Doc. 33, pgID 224-25). The presentence report shows that Mrs. Haughawout has no criminal history. (Doc. 27, pgID 9). The BOP calculates her release date as September 9, 2022. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an inmate, Sandra Haughawout, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).

Mrs. Haughawout suffers from medical conditions, including, inter alia, type 2 diabetes, stage 3 kidney disease, hypertension and depression. (Doc. 39, pgID 4).

The Government does not dispute that the Centers for Disease Control has identified age, diabetes, kidney disease, and hypertension as conditions that increase the risk of severe illness for persons who become infected with COVID-19. It argues, nonetheless, that Mrs. Haughawout should not be released because there is no evidence that she has a higher risk of being exposed 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 her release. (Doc. 41). 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 ․

Discussion

As discussed above, Mrs. Haughawout's medical conditions, particularly in light of her age, put her at greater risk of severe illness and, possibly, death were she to contract COVID-19.

Nonetheless, Mrs. Haughawout has failed to show that, due simply to the COVID-19 pandemic, she meets the requirements for compassionate relief. The CDC considers Ms. Haughawout at significant risk of severely adverse effects from COVID-19. As of this date, however, USP Hazelton has had no inmate COVID-19 cases and only two staff members COVID-19 cases, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Nov. 16, 2020). Mrs. Haughawout has not alleged that she has been, or is likely to be, exposed to those staff members. USP Hazelton's minimal incidence of COVID-19 suggests that to date the institution has effectively protected inmates.

I also find that, Mrs. Haughawout's age or physical/mental health do not create “extraordinary and compelling circumstances.”

Whether Mrs. Haughawout is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health such that it would warrant her release is a fact-intensive analysis. See United States. v. Ebbers, 432 F.Supp.3d 421, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). There is no dispute that she currently suffers from multiple severe and chronic medical conditions.

But the government argues that she has not established that her health condition is extraordinary and compelling. Specifically, the government asserts that while Mrs. Haughawout may suffer from serious medical conditions, she has not established that her conditions are not being managed while she is incarcerated.

Having considered the parties’ arguments in light of the evidence of record – in particular Mrs. Haughawout's treatment records – I find that Mrs. Haughawout has not proven that her health has diminished to a degree that she cannot provide self-care within USP Hazelton.

To the contrary, what little evidence exists on this point tends to show that, notwithstanding Mrs. Haughawout's age and many severe and chronic ailments, she is able to care for herself within the prison. Moreover, the BOP has instituted extensive, and thus far, successful measures to protect inmates from COVID-19. Physicians associated with BOP are also regularly monitoring and effectively treating Mrs. Haughawout's medical needs. And the BOP has not had to transfer Mrs. Haughawout to any outside care facility for care.

As importantly, applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors, I agree with the government that, despite Ms. Haughawout's age and physical or mental health, she has failed to show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” why I should grant her compassionate release.

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Mrs. Haughawout's current 60-month sentence stems from her having hired an apparent hitman to kill her daughter's ex-husband. (Doc. 41, pgID 1). There is no doubt about what she did and wanted to happen. She wasn't play acting; she was, in every sense of the term, deadly serious.

Thus, she admits that, on May 30, 2018, she met in a Milan, Ohio, park with an undercover officer, whom she believed was a hitman. (Doc 27, pgID102). The undercover officer recorded the meeting. (Id.). Mrs. Haughawout told the officer that she hated her daughter's ex-husband and blamed him for her daughter's problems. (Id.). She then gave the officer the $8,000 bounty to murder her intended victim. (Id.).

She also gave the undercover officer information about where her former son-in-law lived and parked his tractor-trailer and the victim's photograph. (Id.). There is no doubt that Mrs. Haughawout was dead serious about what she wanted: to have her former son-in-law murdered.

Thus, the seriousness of Mrs. Haughawout's offense weighs heavily against granting the relief she requests.

B. Defendant's History and Characteristics

Aside from the instant criminal conviction, Mrs. Haughawout does not otherwise have a criminal history. Those who know her describe a caring and selfless individual who is active in her church and community. She is married and a mother to five children and had a successful business for more than thirty years. Indeed, Mrs. Haughawout's motivation was to help a daughter gain custody of her grandchildren.

By all accounts, it appears that Mrs. Haughawout has historically been a peaceful and law-abiding member of her community. This factor weighs in favor of granting Mrs. Haughawout's motion for compassionate release.

C. 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.

Mrs. Haughawout sought to have her former son-in-law killed. Her intended victim is also the father of her grandchildren, two boys age eleven and nine. Thus, had Mrs. Haughawout's plot succeeded, she would have left her grandchildren fatherless. Thus, there would have been three victims, not one. Even in its failure, Mrs. Haughawout's crime has negatively impacted all three lives.

Mrs. Haughawout's former son-in-law provided a victim impact statement. (Doc. 27, pgID 104-105). That statement makes clear the extent to which Mrs. Haughawout's actions traumatized and otherwise changed the lives of her three victims. (Id.).

This factor favors denial of her motion.

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

Mrs. Haughawout lives in the part of town as her former son-in-law. There is no doubt that if she were released, she would encounter many of the same familial dynamics, and scenarios that led to her criminal conduct. At least for the time being, incarceration is the only way deter and reduce the risk of further criminal conduct. She succumbed to temptation once. There can be no ironclad guarantee that she 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 vengeance.

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

E. Present Danger to the Community

Aside from the aborted murder for hire, Mrs. Haughawout has no prior criminal history. And, other than the possible consequences of her acrimony towards her former son-in-law, she does not appear to pose a danger to anyone else in the community. But I find that, given the lengths she went to, Mrs. Haughawout was determined to kill her former son-in-law. She has not presented enough evidence to show that she no longer presents a danger to him. While she may be seventy-two years old now, she was seventy years old when she arranged for his murder. Her age does not suggest that she could not endanger him in the future.

Conclusion

To earn compassionate release, a supplicant must provide, and I must find, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction” of her sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. I do not find that to be so here.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED THAT the defendant's motion for compassionate release (Docs. 35, 39) be, and the same hereby is, denied.

So ordered.

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