Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 16-68 SECTION "R" (4)
05-11-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALOYSIUS KORIEOCHA
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court has received defendant Aloysius Korieocha's motion "seeking to be placed on home confinement under the CARES Act." The government opposes the motion.
R. Doc. 403.
R. Doc. 406.
On May 15, 2019, the Court sentenced Korieocha to 120 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and a quantity of fentanyl. Defendant was part of a drug-trafficking organization that primarily operated in Eastside Hollygrove. Korieocha is imprisoned at the Forrest City Federal Correction Complex, and his expected release date is August 18, 2025. He now asks to be confined at home on account of COVID-19. The Court construes his motion as one for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
See R. Doc. 287.
See R. Doc. 275 at 8 ¶ 37.
See Inmate Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited May 10, 2020).
R. Doc. 403.
The Court does not find compassionate release appropriate in these circumstances. First, defendant has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. The compassionate release statute reads:
The Court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except . . . upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the Warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier . . . .18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Here, defendant candidly admits he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Indeed, defendant's motion does not make clear whether he has even made such a request to the warden of Forrest City. Regardless of whether this failure would require the Court to reject Korieocha's motion as a matter of course—on either jurisdiction or claim-processing grounds—the BOP's lack of opportunity to address defendant's request informs this Court's decision.
R. Doc. 403 ("I have not exhausted the administrative remedy ordained by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).").
Moreover, defendant has not made a showing that the BOP is unable to address his situation adequately. Indeed, the Attorney General has generally instructed the BOP to prioritize granting home confinement on account of COVID-19, and specifically expanded home release in facilities affected by COVID-19. And the BOP not only is aware of COVID-19, but also is taking its own measures to address the disease's impact. Furthermore, to do so, the BOP must use its expertise to consider both the impact of COVID-19 on individual prisoners, as well as the system-wide consequences of releasing prisoners as a response. The Court would be in a much better position to make a decision as to Korieocha's release if it had the benefit of the application of the BOP's expertise in the first instance.
Attorney General, Prioritization of Home Confinement As Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/20200405_covid-19_home_confinement.pdf (last visited May 8, 2020).
Attorney General, Increasing Use of Home Confinement at Institutions Most Affected by COVID-19 , https://www.justice.gov/file/1266661/download (last visited May 8, 2020).
See, e.g., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Update on COVID-19 and Home Confinement (Apr. 5, 2020) (stating that "[i]n response to COVID-19, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has instituted a comprehensive management approach that includes screening, testing, appropriate treatment, prevention, education, and infection control measures"), https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/20200405_covid19_home_confinement.jsp; see also, e.g., Federal Bureau of Prisons, BOP Implementing Modified Operations, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19_status.jsp (last visited May 8, 2020).
And Korieocha has not shown that he satisfies the other requirements for compassionate release. For instance, a reduction must be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The application notes to the relevant policy statement identify three discrete "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that could warrant a reduction: "a terminal illness" or a condition that "substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover;" (b) "[a]ge—starting at age 65;" and (c) "[f]amily [c]ircumstances." See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, application note 1 (emphasis removed). The Guidelines also identify a category of "[o]ther [r]easons," but state that such reasons are "[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons." See id. § 1B1.13, application note 1(D) (emphasis removed).
Defendant is thirty-eight years old and does not point to any family circumstances that would justify compassionate release. The only medical condition he points to is his asthma, which is not a "terminal illness." Although asthma is a chronic condition that may elevate defendant's risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, the presentence investigation report notes that defendant reported "in fair physical condition with no history of hospitalizations" and was not taking any medications. Moreover, defendant has not shown that the chronic illness rises to the level of a condition that "substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, application note 1. Defendant's medical condition therefore does not rise to the level of an "extraordinary and compelling reason" meriting release.
See Centers for Disease Control, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html (last Visited May 8, 2020).
R. Doc. 275 at 23 ¶ 124.
Finally, the Court notes that defendant specifically requests home-confinement as a possible remedy. The Court cannot order that relief. Rather, the decision to order home confinement rests solely with the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (providing that the "Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment"). Numerous courts have therefore found that a court lacks jurisdiction to order home confinement under the CARES Act. See, e.g., United States v. Gentry, No. 5:03-50033-05, 2020 WL 2131001, at *5-6 (W.D. La. May 5, 2020) (finding the court lacked jurisdiction to order home confinement and collecting cases with the same finding).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant's motion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of May, 2020.
/s/_________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE