United States v. Cantone
0:18-cr-60329
| S.D. Fla. | Feb 9, 2021Background:
- Robert Cantone was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on December 6, 2019; his term began January 10, 2020 and his projected release was April 19, 2021 (≈ two months remaining when decided).
- In April 2020 Cantone requested compassionate release from the BOP citing age (74), high blood pressure, and pre-diabetes and argued COVID-19 heightened his risk; the Warden denied the request and Cantone filed a court motion after the 30‑day lapse.
- Cantone pled guilty to conspiracy to commit aircraft parts fraud (nonviolent), cooperated with authorities, and did not appeal his sentence.
- The Government opposed release, arguing Cantone’s medical conditions are common, controlled, and not “extraordinary and compelling,” and that the Court cannot order BOP to place an inmate in home confinement.
- The Court found administrative exhaustion satisfied, concluded the §3553(a) factors were already considered at sentencing and counsel against modification, and determined Cantone failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons based on his health plus COVID‑19.
- The Court denied the compassionate release motion and explained it lacks authority to direct BOP housing; it noted it could reduce a sentence to time‑served and impose home confinement as a supervised‑release condition only if the substantive statutory threshold were met (which it was not).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Cantone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion | No objection; BOP denied and 30 days lapsed | He requested relief from Warden and waited >30 days before filing | Exhaustion satisfied |
| Applicability of §3553(a) factors | Original sentencing already applied §3553(a); factors do not support further reduction | §3553(a) favors reduction: nonviolent offense, low risk, limited profit | Court declines to revisit prior §3553 findings; factors counsel against reduction |
| Extraordinary and compelling reasons (medical + COVID-19) | Age, hypertension, pre‑diabetes are common/managed, not CDC high‑risk; no evidence he cannot self‑care or that prison exposure is greater than home | Age (74), hypertension, pre‑diabetes + pandemic create extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release | Denied: medical conditions and COVID‑19 do not together constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons; defendant failed to show increased risk or inability to receive care |
| Authority to order home confinement | Court lacks authority to direct BOP to place inmates in home confinement | Requests home confinement or time‑served + supervised release with home confinement as condition | Court cannot order BOP to designate place of confinement; could reduce to time‑served and impose home confinement via supervised‑release condition but refuses because defendant failed statutory threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2002) (district courts have no inherent authority to modify an imposed sentence)
- United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (court’s authority to modify sentences is narrowly statutory)
- United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 2013) (defendant bears burden to show danger standard satisfied for pretrial release considerations)
- United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (presence of COVID‑19 alone does not independently justify compassionate release)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (BOP retains authority over place of confinement; court may recommend but not order placement)
- United States v. Feucht, 462 F. Supp. 3d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (example where government agreed defendant’s diabetes constituted extraordinary and compelling reason)