United States v. Hernandez-Solarte, 1:18-cr-00262

Defendant Vincent Schifano moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); the Government did not oppose and provided medical and disciplinary records.
Schifano has exhausted administrative remedies required by the statute.
He suffers from terminal metastatic bladder cancer, with physicians estimating a high mortality risk within six months; he is hospitalized and transitioning to inpatient hospice care.
He has additional medical issues (UTIs with altered mental status, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cellulitis) and is described as sick, weak, disoriented, and bedridden.
Schifano has served about five years of a 108-month sentence for laundering millions for violent organizations (FARC and the Sinaloa Cartel) and has been a model prisoner with no recent disciplinary problems.
The Court found that the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Medical Condition Note supports release, that the 3553(a) factors do not outweigh compassionate release, and that Schifano poses no danger to the community; Age-based Note 1(B) was inapplicable because he had not served 75% of his term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for compassionate release	Schifano: terminal metastatic bladder cancer, imminent high mortality risk; hospice care recommended	Gov't: did not oppose release	Granted — Court finds Medical Condition Note satisfied by terminal illness
Whether release is consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors	Schifano: having served ~5 years, model prisoner, minimal remaining quality of life — time served is sufficient punishment	Gov't: no opposition; acknowledged seriousness of offense	Granted — Court held 3553(a) factors do not outweigh release
Whether release would pose a danger to the community	Schifano: incapacitated, bedridden, not a danger	Gov't: no opposition	Granted — Court found no danger to the community
Applicability of USSC Age-based Note 1(B) as alternative ground	Schifano: (not relied on)	Gov't/Court: he has not served 75% of his term, so Age Note factors not met	Not met — Age-based Note inapplicable

United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (district courts may define what qualifies as "extraordinary and compelling" beyond the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement)