United States v. Bardesis
6:18-cr-00032
E.D. Okla.Apr 12, 2021Background
- Defendant Bruce Bardesis pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count 1) and received a bargained-for 96‑month sentence; a related firearms count (Count 2) was dismissed at sentencing.
- The PSR calculated a guideline range of 24–30 months for Count 1; conviction on Count 2 would have exposed Bardesis to a consecutive 120‑month term, yielding a much longer aggregate sentence absent the plea deal.
- Bardesis (56) is incarcerated at FCI El Reno, has type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and is overweight (BMI ~29); he sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) citing COVID‑19 risk and caregiving needs for his ailing mother.
- Bardesis exhausted administrative remedies (warden denial and administrative appeal) and filed a § 3582 motion in district court; the Government conceded exhaustion but opposed release on medical‑treatment and public‑safety/§ 3553(a) grounds.
- The court applied the Tenth Circuit’s three‑step approach (extraordinary/compelling reasons; consistency with applicable policy statements; consideration of § 3553(a) factors) and reviewed BOP records, facility COVID data, and Bardesis’s disciplinary/recidivism classification.
- The court denied compassionate release: it found the risk/medical circumstances did not amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release and, in any event, the § 3553(a) factors (including the plea bargain and seriousness of the offense) weighed against reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court has authority/exhaustion | Govt: Bardesis met exhaustion so court may consider relief | Bardesis: filed requests and waited; court may act | Court: exhaustion satisfied; court had authority to consider motion |
| Extraordinary and compelling reasons (COVID risk) | Govt: although Bardesis has comorbidities, FCI El Reno can treat COVID; release may not lower infection risk | Bardesis: diabetes, hypertension, overweight place him at high risk of severe COVID‑19 illness | Court: Bardesis’s conditions do not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release |
| Applicability of policy statements / safety assessment | Govt: reduction must be consistent with Sentencing Commission statement and consider danger under §3142(g) | Bardesis: BOP classifies him low recidivism risk; exemplary record | Court: noted low risk score but proceeded to deny on other grounds; did not find the policy/§3142(g) analysis dispositive in favor of release |
| §3553(a) factors and plea‑deal reliance | Govt: release would undermine bargained 96‑month sentence and not reflect offense seriousness or deterrence | Bardesis: has employment plan, housing with mother, low risk, role as caregiver | Court: §3553(a) factors weigh against relief; reduction to time served would not reflect seriousness; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (adopts three‑step framework for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (courts must consider § 3553(a) factors when modifying sentences)
- United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021) (district courts may deny compassionate‑release motions when any statutory prerequisite is lacking)
- United States v. Navarro, 986 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2021) (affirming that all three § 3582(c)(1)(A) steps must be addressed when granting relief)
- United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (Guideline § 1B1.13 does not constrain district courts considering defendant‑filed compassionate‑release motions)