Opinion
15-05045-01-CR-SW-MDH
06-08-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUSTIN PARRISH, Defendant.
ORDER
DOUGLAS HARPOOL United States District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Dustin Parrish's pro se motion for compassionate release (Doc. 33). After careful consideration, the motion is DENIED on the merits.
The Court previously denied Defendant's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 37). The Court now takes up and considers his pro se motion for compassionate release. (Doc. 36). Defendant seeks to have his combined 190-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime reduced to time served based upon what he claims is an extraordinary and compelling reason. Defendant claims that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists because his eight-year-old daughter needs him to care for her. (Doc. 33). The Government opposes Defendant's motion. (Doc. 35).
To be entitled to compassionate release, this Court must find that Defendant has demonstrated that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction, ” that “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, ” and only “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a).” 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Family circumstances may be an extraordinary and compelling circumstance where there is “the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child or minor children, ” or “the incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or registered partner.” (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 Application Note 1(C).) Defendant claims that his eight-year-old daughter's current caretaker is the child's grandmother and is severely ill with tumors on her lungs, pancreatic cancer, and is not expected to live much longer. Defendant, however, provides no medical documentation to substantiate his claims. It is Defendant's burden to show he is entitled to relief and must present more than selfserving assertions.
Further, Defendant presents no evidence that he has legal custody of the child, that he will be able to gain custody of the child upon release, nor has Defendant demonstrated that he is a suitable caretaker for the child. The PSR notes that the child is in the custody of the Missouri's Children's Division and has been placed with the maternal grandparents in Joplin, Missouri. (PSR ¶ 69.) As a result, Defendant has failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying a sentencing reduction. See United States v. Johnson, No. 15-cr-00059, 2020 WL 6075867, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2020) (defendant did not establish that he was a suitable caretaker by making unsupported assertions of suitability and failing to show he had “any custodial rights with respect to his child or whether, if released, those rights would be recognized and he would actually be awarded custody of his son”); United States v. Dawkins, No. 08-412, 2021 WL 1946662, at *3-4 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2021) (holding “that a defendant must demonstrate suitability to become a caregiver in order to provide the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.12 cmt. n.1(C)(i)”)); United States v. Ramos, No. CR12-4101-LTS, 2021 WL 4507464, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 1, 2021) (finding the defendant not a suitable caregiver, “as he does not have parental rights, let alone legal custody ... and has not provided evidence showing he will regain custody upon release.”).
The Government also asserts that Defendant remains a danger to the community. During the underlying offense, Defendant participated in an inherently dangerous criminal enterprise that harmed the public health and welfare. During the conspiracy, Defendant was accountable for distributing approximately two and a half pounds of methamphetamine in the Southwest Missouri area. (PSR ¶ 8.) Additionally, Defendant possessed a firearm while distributing methamphetamine. Defendant has a lengthy criminal history as evidenced by a criminal history score of 18 and criminal history category of VI. Defendant's “Adult Criminal Convictions” section spans 9 pages of his 19-page PSR and dates back to 2005 when Defendant was 18 years old. Defendant has prior felony convictions for possession of a chemical with intent to create a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. (PSR ¶¶ 42, 48.) He also has nine convictions for driving while his license was revoked, four convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia, two convictions for larceny, and two convictions for driving while under the influence of drugs. (PSR ¶¶ 26, 27, 30, 33, 36-41, 43-47, 50). Moreover, the instant offense was committed while Defendant was on parole.
After careful consideration of the record before the Court, including the arguments contained in the government's response, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's motion for compassionate release (Doc. 33). The Court finds that the Defendant has not established that his circumstances are so extraordinary or compelling that he should be immediately released. The Court also finds that the defendant remains a danger to the community which further supports denial of the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.