United States v. VAZQUEZ
2:07-cr-00423
E.D. Pa.Feb 16, 2022Background
- May 2, 2007: Philadelphia surveillance led to Vazquez being stopped after a suspected drug buy; he fled, discarded a jar later found to contain PCP, and officers recovered a loaded .357 magnum on his person.
- July 24, 2007: Indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pled guilty March 24, 2008; sentenced November 25, 2008 to 198 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release and fines; sentence affirmed on appeal.
- November–December 2020: Vazquez requested the BOP file a compassionate-release motion; the warden denied the request and Vazquez filed a pro se § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion on January 4, 2021.
- Medical and custody facts: Vazquez is 42, diagnosed with asthma, symptomatic bradycardia, and obesity (BMI 31); he is housed at FCI Petersburg (mitigation measures in place), fully vaccinated with a Moderna booster, and receives routine treatment for conditions.
- Procedural posture: Court considered whether (1) Vazquez exhausted administrative remedies, (2) he demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and (3) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors support release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Vazquez: timely requested BOP relief and waited 30 days before filing in court | Gov: opposed relief but did not dispute exhaustion | Court: Vazquez satisfied exhaustion requirement |
| Extraordinary and compelling reason (COVID risk) | Vazquez: asthma, irregular heartbeat, and obesity place him at high risk of severe COVID-19 illness | Gov: conditions are controlled, he is vaccinated/boosted, and BOP mitigation reduces risk | Court: Medical risk and prison conditions do not amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons |
| Application of § 3553(a) factors | Vazquez: time served, rehabilitation, good conduct time support release | Gov: offense severity, extensive criminal history, and public safety weigh against release | Court: § 3553(a) factors weigh against compassionate release |
| Role of Sentencing Commission policy statement | Vazquez: court may consider defendant-initiated reasons beyond policy statement | Gov: policy statement remains instructive | Court: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 not binding for defendant motions but is guiding; court exercised discretion consistent with precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (limits post‑sentence modification absent statutory exception)
- United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255 (3d Cir. 2021) (district courts may consider reasons outside U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 for defendant‑initiated compassionate release)
- United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (district courts have discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors on compassionate‑release motions)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 392 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (discussing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 commentary and BOP authority over extraordinary‑and‑compelling determinations)
- United States v. Nunez, 483 F. Supp. 3d 280 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (describing COVID‑19 challenges in prison settings and BOP mitigation measures)