UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESSE MORENO
CR 95-345-RSWL-10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 10, 2023
Case 2:95-cr-00345-RSWL Document 10577 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:5051
ORDER re: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE [10562]
Currently before the Court is Defendant Jesse Moreno‘s (“Defendant“) Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to
///
///
///
A. Factual & Procedural Background
On May 30, 1997, Defendant was convicted on four counts related to his participation in or involvement with the Mexican Mafia (known also as “La Eme“). J. & Commitment, ECF No. 1838. The four counts involved Defendant‘s participation in a conspiracy to commit murder in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO“) and Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute (“VICAR“). First Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 360. The Court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. J & Commitment.
On July 6, 2017, this Court denied [10486] Defendant‘s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
The First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, permits a defendant to directly petition the district court for a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute. See
The Ninth Circuit has recently clarified that there are currently no “applicable policy statements” defining what reasons are sufficiently “extraordinary and compelling” to warrant compassionate release when requested by the defendant. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). “The Sentencing Commission‘s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court‘s discretion for
///
Defendant argues that compassionate release is warranted because (1) he has effectively served a life sentence since he has spent twenty-seven years in prison and is now “at death‘s door” due to the severity of his cancer; (2) he has been sufficiently punished; (3) he has achieved significant rehabilitation; and (4) his release will not pose a danger to the public. Def.‘s Mot. for Reduction of Sentence (“Mot.“) 14:1-20:4, ECF No. 10562.
The Government does not dispute that Defendant has sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies. Govt.‘s Opp‘n to Mot. (“Opp‘n“) 8:4-7, ECF No. 10565. Nor does the Government argue that Defendant lacks extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant a reduction in Defendant‘s sentence.
When reviewing a motion for compassionate release, courts are required to consider various factors including: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
The Government contends that these factors disfavor Defendant‘s release because (1) Defendant‘s offenses are of a serious nature; (2) Defendant has a significant criminal history; (3) Defendant is not seeking grace for a “youthful indiscretion” since he committed the instant offenses at fifty-five years of age; (4) the Federal Bureau of Prisons can adequately manage Defendant‘s health conditions; and (5) release will diminish the deterrent effect of Defendant‘s sentence. Opp‘n 12:8-13:7.
Defendant counters that he has been sufficiently punished and general deterrence has been established because he has “served a very significant sentence” that exceeds the average federal sentence imposed for murder, and he spent many years in solitary confinement. Def.‘s Reply to the Opp‘n (“Reply“) 4:8-5:7.
The Court addresses the relevant
1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics of the Defendant
The nature and circumstances of Defendant‘s offenses are serious. Defendant was convicted on four counts related to his participation in or involvement with the Mexican Mafia. J. & Commitment. These four counts involved Defendant‘s participation in a conspiracy to commit murder in violation of RICO and VICAR. See generally Presentencing Report (“PSR“), ECF No. 10467. Moreover, prior to these convictions, Defendant committed assault and battery and armed robbery. Opp‘n 12:20-22. Based on the nature of the instant offenses and Defendant‘s criminal history, Defendant was sentenced to life in prison-a sentence reserved for the most grievous crimes. J. & Commitment. Accordingly, this factor counsels against a reduction.
2. The Need to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, to Promote Respect for the Law, and to Provide Just Punishment for the Offense
Courts evaluating the need for the sentence imposed have found that “the biologically likely span remaining to a defendant is . . . logically relevant to the
Here, Defendant was sentenced to life in prison and has served twenty-seven years. As discussed, Defendant committed serious offenses, and although Defendant has served a significant amount of time in prison, he nonetheless has not served the life sentence he received. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant‘s cancer diagnosis, life sentences are only given for the gravest of crimes and reducing such a sentence due to the anticipated manner of death diminishes the necessary impact of the sentence. Therefore, this factor weights against release.
3. The Need to Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct
Defendant argues that serving twenty-seven years is adequate deterrence. Mot. 16:25-17:17. Defendant‘s sentence, however, must be adequate to deter others from becoming repeat offenders. As the Government points out, Defendant committed various acts of violence prior to the offenses in this Action and committed these
4. The Need to Protect the Public from Further Crimes of the Defendant
Defendant argues that his terminal illness and resulting physical inabilities make it highly unlikely he will continue to participate in criminal activity. Mot. 20:5-21:6. But there are various crimes that do not require any physical exertion. Moreover, Defendant‘s diagnosis may encourage criminal activity since he would not suffer any meaningful repercussions, and Defendant‘s status as a repeat offender heightens this risk. See Enriquez, 2021 WL 3772379 at *8 (“Defendant argues his illness makes it highly unlikely he will continue trafficking drugs. However, the counterargument to this is that he may instead embrace a life of crime given he has nothing left to lose now that he has a cancer diagnosis. This concern is bolstered by Defendant‘s prior conviction for the same offense, suggesting he is likely to recidivate.“). Thus, this factor weighs against reduction of sentence.
5. The Need to Provide the Defendant with Needed Educational or Vocational Training, Medical Care, or Other Correctional Treatment in the Most Effective Manner
As the Government discussed, Defendant does not argue that the Federal Bureau of Prisons cannot provide
Since all the
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant‘s Motion for Reduction of Sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 10, 2023
/S/ RONALD S.W. LEW
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior U.S. District Judge