455 F.Supp.3d 53
W.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Defendant James H. Bess, Jr. pleaded guilty (Oct. 4, 2018) to possession with intent to distribute ≥5 g methamphetamine and was sentenced (May 10, 2019) to 84 months’ imprisonment (statutory minimum 60 months) and 5 years supervised release.
- At the time of the motion Bess had served ~41 months at FCI Butner Low (crediting good time) and faced an anticipated release date of Oct. 20, 2022.
- Bess, then about to turn 65, suffers serious cardiac disease (congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, depressed ventricular function), prior CABG and ICD implants, diabetes, and hypertension.
- He petitioned the BOP for compassionate release (submitted Apr. 8, 2020); the BOP denied the request and Bess did not exhaust administrative appeals before filing in district court; the government argued the failure to exhaust barred relief.
- The court found COVID-19 presented extraordinary risk given Bess’s conditions and Butner’s outbreak, excused exhaustion under equitable principles, and granted compassionate release to time served with home incarceration and electronic monitoring through Oct. 20, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Bess’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional or subject to exceptions | The court may excuse exhaustion here because COVID-19 creates extraordinary circumstances and Bess acted diligently in seeking relief | Exhaustion is mandatory and must be strictly enforced; Bess failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Court held the exhaustion rule is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule and may be excused under equitable principles in extraordinary circumstances; excused here |
| Whether Bess’s medical condition and COVID-19 at Butner constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" | Bess’s age and multiple serious cardiac and metabolic conditions, combined with a COVID outbreak at Butner, qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons | Government did not contest seriousness of conditions but focused on exhaustion and risk assessment | Court found Bess’s health and facility conditions satisfy "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release |
| Whether Bess is a danger to the community under U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(2) | Bess has completed programming, no disciplinary history, and his offenses are nonviolent and tied to substance abuse; age/health make recidivism unlikely | BOP classified Bess as a medium recidivism risk and cited his extensive criminal history | Court concluded Bess is not a danger to community given age, health, criminal history context, and supervision conditions |
| Whether §3553(a) factors and statutory minimums bar release earlier than 60-month mandatory minimum | Bess argued §3553(a) factors (age, health, nonviolent history) and supervised release/home incarceration justify reducing to time served even before statutory minimum completion | Government urged respect for sentencing structure and BOP risk classification; sought possible extension of supervised release | Court found §3553(a) factors, original downward variance at sentencing, and imposed supervision/home incarceration justify reducing sentence to time served despite statutory minimum; declined to extend supervised release term |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (statutory text controls whether a requirement is jurisdictional)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative-exhaustion rules are not always subject to judicially created exceptions)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling standard for habeas: diligence plus extraordinary circumstance)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (statutes of limitation are normally subject to equitable tolling)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (statutory language that does not invoke jurisdictional terms does not make a rule jurisdictional)