COMPASSIONATE RELEASE/SENTENCE REDUCTIONS IN FEDERAL COURT

There are three types of reductions in sentence available under Title 18 United States Code Section 3582:

I. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) – Available where there exists “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances, defined by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to include:
- Medical circumstances (terminal or debilitating illnesses);
- Family members (children, spouses, parents, siblings) are dying or medically debilitated;
- The prison is neglecting a client’s medical condition;
- Client was physically or sexually assaulted in prison;
- There’s been a non-retroactive change in law that would result in a lower sentence today;
- “Other reasons,” which are non-listed reasons or combinations of listed and non-listed reasons.
II. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) – Congress changes a statute, and that change is given retroactive effect, meaning people convicted under the statute can return to court and ask the court for a reduced sentence.
III. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) – same as above, except the United States Sentencing Commission changes a federal sentencing guideline.

Experienced counsel can make a difference

Successfully bringing a motions to reduce sentence is difficult, as there is a strong presumption that once a sentence is imposed it will be served in full, except for various statutory credits such as “good time” and “earned credits.” One significant hurdle to succeeding on a compassionate release motion is credibility. As there is no limit on the number of motions a prisoner can file, sometimes incarcerated persons believe they can first file for compassionate release on their own and then hire a lawyer if they lose. Bad idea. Although some inmates have been granted relief upon motions they file themselves (filing “pro se”) the assistance of experienced counsel is often key to success.

How we do it

At Levitt & Kaizer, we are experts in all things § 3582. In his prior job at a prisoner advocacy organization, Levitt & Kaizer partner Zach Segal helped lay the groundwork for “compassionate release motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Since then, Zach has monitored all published decisions addressing such motions and writes and lectures widely on bringing compassionate release applications. Levitt & Kaizer partner Richard Levitt, in his annual criminal law lecture on behalf of the New York Criminal Bar Association also discusses legal developments in compassionate release law.

Our approach is simple. We first speak with the client to ascertain whether there in fact are “extraordinary and compelling” that might justify a sentence reduction Then, we speak with family members to get a sense of the client and begin collecting letters about who the client has become during incarceration and develop and "exit plan" to assure the court that the client, if released, will have necessary support, a place to live, and a job. We review the record to understand the nature of the charges, how the judge viewed the client, what the client said at sentencing, how co-defendants were sentenced and if their sentences were reduced, and, where relevant, obtain and review the client’s medical records. Once we have all the information, we put it all together in a brief and get it filed. We understand that many of the relevant circumstances in a given case may be emergent and therefore file as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to be thorough.

Examples of Successful Motions

Because of our hard earned experience, as well as our expertise and perseverance, we have brought numerous successful motions under § 3582(c). Here are just a few examples:

United States v. Rengifo, Southern District of New York (2021). This client was abducted by a Colombian paramilitary group at 13 years old and was forced to become a child soldier, which required him to guard a U.S. citizen captured by the paramilitary group. After befriending the citizen, the client fled the group’s jungle base camp and turned himself in under what he thought was an amnesty agreement but was instead sent to the United States where he was prosecuted and sentenced to 15-years for guarding the captured U.S. citizen. We argued, and the judge agreed, that compassionate release was warranted because, among other reasons, it was unfair that he was in prison even though the leader of the group that abducted him was spared extradition because of a new amnesty agreement between Colombia and the paramilitary group that the United States negotiated. The client was granted immediate release.
United States v. Lugo, Eastern District of New York (2022). While we were representing this client on a habeas petition challenging his life sentence, he had a stroke and we began looking into filing for compassionate release. During our review, we realized that his co-defendants’ life sentences had been reduced due to a change in law unavailable to our client, even though we concluded he was otherwise equally deserving. The court agreed that this disparity was unfair, and the client’s life sentence was reduced to 25 years. He was released shortly thereafter.
United States v. Danilovich, Southern District of New York (2023). After losing his first motion, this client came to us a few years later. We did a deep dive into his medical records and noticed the operation the federal prison said it needed more information to approve was in fact not available and so we argued, together with his incredible demonstration of rehabilitation, that his 25-year sentence for one of the largest no-fault insurance schemes in the history of the Southern District should be reduced to 15-years. The court granted our motion, and the defendant was immediately transferred to a lower security facility and released shortly thereafter.
United States v. Miller, Eastern District of New York (2024). This client had been in prison for 35-years, serving 6 life sentences for leading the notorious drug enterprise, the Supreme Team of Southside Jamaica Queens. In 2018, there was a change in law removing the 100:1 distinction between crack and cocaine, and Congress authorized eligible defendants to request a resentencing. We spent hours combing through old court records to make the preliminary showing that the change in law applied to all of our client’s life sentences. Simultaneously, we collected literally decades of institutional records, and together with countless of letters of support, including from a well-known rapper and federal prison guards, demonstrated the incredible transformation our client had undergone during his three-plus decades of incarceration. Although we asked in our § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction to 40-years, the judge instead granted immediate release, and the client was released over a year ago.

These and other of our successes were not available for the asking; they took substantial work, persistence, thoroughness, and application of our expertise. If you believe you have a possibly meritorious claim for a sentence reduction we’d be happy to discuss your case with you.

TYPICAL "THANK YOUS”

We receive many “thank yous” from our clients, many of which you can read here and here. Here's an example:

A million thank you's!

I cannot begin to explain the immense appreciation and gratitude I feel towards the both of you. I thank the heavens for the day your firm was recommended to this family. Dealing with this case has been incredibly depressing and stressful. I’m so glad that the family hired your firm to represent Anthony after we blew trial. You gave me back my joy and significantly affected all of our futures in the most amazing way; you aided in bringing him home and for that I will forever be thankful. You have restored both of his parents happiness and purpose in life. I know it wasn’t an easy journey but you guys rocked and you did everything in your power to get the best results in this case. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for returning joy back to my life and for reducing his sentence by more than half. You guys are incredibly amazing. Thank you for all your efforts & all the patience you had dealing with my super stubborn boy.

ADDITIONAL READING

For additional guidance regarding the issues raised in this article and concerning other areas of our practice you may want to read about our representation during investigations, appeals, post-conviction representation, forfeiture and restitution, federal and state criminal defense, financial compensation for wrongful convictions, and civil litigation.

Contact Us

📞 Call Levitt & Kaizer: office (212) 480-4000 cell (917) 324-4000

📍 Office: 40 Fulton Street, Suite 1702, New York, NY 10038-1850

🖥️ Website: www.levittandkaizer.com