United States v. Acuna
1:07-cr-00615-SOM
| D. Haw. | Jan 25, 2022Background
- Benjamin Acuna convicted by jury (2008) of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering; criminal forfeiture also imposed.
- Sentenced (2009) to 384 months (Count 1) and 240 months (Count 3), concurrent; sentence below life term under advisory Guidelines after role, firearm, and obstruction enhancements.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed; § 2255 motion and COA denied. Prior compassionate‑release motion (Mar. 2020) denied; this is Acuna’s second § 3582(c)(1)(A) request (filed Nov. 8, 2021).
- Government conceded, for response purposes only, that Acuna satisfied the 30‑day/administrative exhaustion timing requirement.
- Acuna argued rehabilitation, a medical incident (injury/carbon‑monoxide exposure causing headaches/migraines), and family circumstances (two sons raised by grandparents) warrant release; court found no new facts convincing enough to change prior ruling.
- Court exercised its broad discretion, found no extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release, and denied the motion (Jan. 25, 2022).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Acuna had satisfied the 30‑day lapse/warden request requirement | Govt: for response purposes, agreed Acuna satisfied exhaustion but opposed relief on merits | Court accepted exhaustion concession and proceeded to merits |
| Whether rehabilitation/rehabilitation + other factors constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" | Acuna: extensive rehabilitation and maturation justify reduction | Govt: rehabilitation alone is insufficient; prior denial stands | Court: rehabilitation alone not extraordinary; no new combination of factors shown; denied |
| Whether Acuna’s medical condition qualifies as extraordinary and compelling | Acuna: injury and CO exposure cause chronic headaches/migraines | Govt: medical records show mild findings, responsive to treatment, no severe chronic condition warranting release | Court: medical issues not sufficiently severe to justify compassionate release; denied |
| Whether family circumstances (children cared for by grandparents) warrant release | Acuna: children were left without parents and raised by family | Govt: absence of details showing caregiver death/incapacitation or that Acuna is only available caregiver | Court: record lacks particulars required by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 family‑circumstance examples; denied |
| Applicability of Sentencing Commission policy statements and court discretion | Acuna implicitly relied on Guideline framework | Govt: reduction must be consistent with policy statements; but concession on exhaustion left merits contested | Court: follows Ninth Circuit view that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable binding policy statement for inmate‑filed motions but may inform discretion; exercised discretion and denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (holds § 1B1.13 survives but applies only to BOP‑filed motions)
- United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (discusses courts’ differing views on applicability of the Sentencing Commission’s Application Note)
- United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021) (concludes there is no applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement for defendant‑filed compassionate‑release motions, but the Guideline may inform judicial discretion)