United States v. PICARDO
2:19-cr-00401
D.N.J.Nov 5, 2020Background
- Defendant Louis Picardo was sentenced on Feb 4, 2020 for tax evasion (failure to report ≈ $3.7M) to 366 days imprisonment and 2 years supervised release.
- Picardo contracted COVID-19, was hospitalized, and his self-surrender was postponed from June 24, 2020; the court later set November 23, 2020 as surrender date.
- Picardo filed a renewed motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Oct. 8, 2020) seeking conversion of his incarceration to probation with home confinement, citing age (65) and underlying medical conditions (diabetes, chronic kidney disease, sleep apnea) and a July 17, 2020 written request to the warden.
- The Government opposed, arguing (a) § 3582(c)(1)(A) applies only to prisoners already serving a term in BOP custody and (b) the statute permits only reduction of a term of imprisonment, not resentencing to a non‑custodial penalty.
- The Court held Picardo ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) because he had not yet begun serving his sentence and because the statute authorizes only limited reductions of an imposed imprisonment term (not full resentencing).
- The Court denied the motion without prejudice and granted a 90‑day extension of Picardo’s surrender date from Nov. 23, 2020 to Feb. 23, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Picardo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A) applies to a sentenced defendant who has not yet begun serving incarceration | § 3582 is intended for inmates already in BOP custody; procedural requirements (wardens/warden request) presuppose custody | Nothing in text requires current BOP custody; being sentenced is sufficient; he submitted a warden request July 17 | Denied: court found scheme contemplates defendants who have begun serving sentence; Picardo not eligible |
| Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes converting an imposed prison sentence into probation/home confinement (i.e., resentencing) | § 3582 authorizes reducing the term of imprisonment, not resentencing to a lesser type of punishment | Seeks reduction/compassionate release to avoid COVID risk — conversion to home confinement is appropriate relief | Denied: court held § 3582’s relief is limited to reducing an imprisonment term and incidental supervisory conditions, not full resentencing |
| Whether exhaustion/administrative prerequisites were satisfied | Government argued exhaustion and procedural prerequisites are required and support denial | Picardo asserted he submitted the required written request to the warden on July 17, 2020 | Court did not base denial on exhaustion; denied on eligibility and statutory‑scope grounds |
| Appropriate remedy given health concerns | Gov't offered to extend surrender date; opposed immediate non‑custodial sentence | Picardo argued delay insufficient due to pandemic risk at facility | Court found a 90‑day surrender extension a permissible accommodation and ordered it |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (district court may modify a term of imprisonment only in limited circumstances and may not conduct a plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Konny, 463 F. Supp. 3d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (compassionate‑release motion denied where defendant had not yet surrendered to BOP custody)
- United States v. Nazer, 458 F. Supp. 3d 967 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (court analyzed § 3582 motion from a defendant who had not yet surrendered but expressed doubts about eligibility and denied relief)
- United States v. Hernandez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (compassionate‑release considerations where defendant had begun serving his sentence)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 1194 (E.D. Wash. 2020) (consideration of § 3582 motion for a defendant serving in a local jail awaiting BOP designation)