UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAWNTA BROWN (2025)

DECISION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by defendant Shawnta Brown (hereinafter “Defendant”) for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Dkt. 422). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was sentenced to 248 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release after pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment charging conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to Count 2 charging possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). (Dkt. 223; Dkt. 224; Dkt. 258; Dkt. 263).

The pending motion represents at least the tenth request by Defendant for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)—averaging over two motions per year since Defendant began filing the requests in 2020.¹ The government opposes the motion on the grounds that Defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, he has failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, and consideration of the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) does not support the requested relief. (Dkt. 425). Further, by memorandum dated October 25, 2024, the United States Probation Office (“USPO”) responded by producing Defendant's medical records that indicate Defendant's medical condition is under control through follow-up appointments and treatment, as set forth the USPO's opposition to the motion. (Dkt. 427; Dkt. 428). Defendant filed a reply in an attempt to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative remedies, by citing to a purported denial of relief by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) dated April 14, 2023. (Dkt. 426).²

Defendant is 48 years old and currently housed within the BOP at United States Penitentiary Lewisburg (“USP Lewisburg”) located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, with a scheduled release date of October 18, 2029. See Find an Inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2025).

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

“A court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except pursuant to statute.” United States v. Gotti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The compassionate release statute, as amended by the First Step Act, is such a statutory exception, and provides as follows:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that ․ the court, upon motion of the Director of the [BOP] ․, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] ․ to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, 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 ․ extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction ․ and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Relief is appropriate pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) when the following conditions are met: (1) the exhaustion requirement of the statute is satisfied; (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction of the prison sentence; (3) the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support modification of the prison term; and (4) the reduction is consistent with the policy statement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. If any “one of those conditions is lacking, [the district court] need not address the remaining ones.” United States v. Keitt, 21 F.4th 67, 73 (2d Cir. 2021).³ “The defendant carries the burden of showing that he or she is entitled to a sentence reduction under the statute.” United States v. Roney, No. 10-CR-130S, 2020 WL 2846946, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020), aff'd, 833 F. App'x 850 (2d Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Fernandez, 104 F.4th 420, 427 (2d Cir. 2024) (“The burden of showing that the circumstances warrant a sentence reduction is on the defendant.”).

Defendant's pending motion fails for a number of reasons. First, the Court agrees with the government that Defendant has failed to establish administrative exhaustion. While Defendant cites to a BOP denial from April 2023 (Dkt. 426 at 2), he filed two other motions for compassionate release since that time (see Dkt. 414; Dkt. 418) and those prior motions were denied (Dkt. 417; Dkt. 420). Thus, Defendant has failed to establish that he made a request with the warden for compassionate release before filing the current motion.

Even if Defendant could establish administrative exhaustion, the request would be denied because the § 3553(a) factors do not warrant the relief requested by Defendant. The Court has already extensively discussed the § 3553(a) factors in its prior decisions (see, e.g., Dkt. 332 at 31-32; Dkt. 346 at 6-8), and why they do not warrant granting Defendant compassionate release. Nothing has been presented with the current motion that would alter the Court's prior conclusions. As previously noted, Defendant was “a major and significant drug dealer” who had been engaged in drug trafficking activity for a long time; he was “a very high level drug dealer” who was “dealing very significant amounts of cocaine” and engaged in conduct representing a significant harm to the community; and he possessed at least nine firearms in furtherance of his drug trafficking activity, representing a distinct type of harm and danger. (See Dkt. 349 at 17-20).

In addition, as the Court has previously concluded, Defendant's medical condition does not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant a sentence reduction. While the Court has acknowledged the serious medical condition that Defendant suffers from, he was diagnosed with this condition in 2013 (i.e. prior to his original sentence) (Dkt. 265 at ¶ 116) and as noted by the BOP medical records, the condition appears under control. Defendant's arguments concerning the need to be there for his children and the length of his sentence, even considered in connection with the now-applicable policy statement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, do not alter the Court's conclusions that Defendant has not established extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Dkt. 422) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On April 30, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for compassionate release (Dkt. 320), which the Court denied by Order entered May 26, 2020 (Dkt. 323). Defendant renewed his motion on June 4, 2020 (Dkt. 324), and also sought reconsideration of the denial of his earlier motion for compassionate release (Dkt. 326), and by Decision and Order entered September 9, 2020, this Court denied those motions, along with Defendant's motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 332). Defendant sought reconsideration of that Decision and Order to the extent it denied the request for compassionate release (Dkt. 336), which the Court denied by Order entered October 13, 2020 (Dkt. 339). Defendant again sought reconsideration of the Court's denial of his request for compassionate release (Dkt. 340), which the Court denied by Decision and Order entered January 5, 2021 (Dkt. 346). Defendant again filed a motion for reconsideration on April 29, 2021 (Dkt. 352), which the Court denied by Text Order entered May 5, 2021 (Dkt. 353). Defendant appealed from the Court's Decision and Order entered January 5, 2021 (Dkt. 347), and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision by Summary Order entered December 13, 2021 (Dkt. 362). Defendant filed another motion for compassionate release on January 14, 2022 (Dkt. 360), which was denied by Decision and Order entered March 22, 2022 (Dkt. 369). Defendant appealed that decision (Dkt. 370), and the appeal was dismissed because it lacked an arguable basis either in law or in fact (Dkt. 380). Defendant filed another motion for compassionate release on July 11, 2022 (Dkt. 373), which was denied by Text Order entered July 29, 2022 (Dkt. 375). Defendant filed another motion for compassionate release on January 16, 2024 (Dkt. 414), which was denied by Text Order entered January 31, 2024 (Dkt. 417). Then, on March 26, 2024, Defendant filed another motion for compassionate release (Dkt. 418), which was denied by Text Order entered May 6, 2024 (Dkt. 420).

2.   Also attached to Defendant's reply are records from a family court proceeding that may contain the names of minor children. (Dkt. 426 at 3-7). The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to seal this filing.

3.   At the time the Second Circuit decided Keitt, the policy statement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 was not applicable to motions for compassionate release filed before a district court. 21 F.4th at 71 n.2. But with the November 1, 2023 amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, that policy statement is now relevant to a motion filed in the district court.

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD Chief Judge United States District Court