United States of America v. P Yoelfi Feliz

565 F. Supp. 3d 118, 2021 DNH 152
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedOctober 4, 2021
Docket17-cr-185-LM-1
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 565 F. Supp. 3d 118 (United States of America v. P Yoelfi Feliz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America v. P Yoelfi Feliz, 565 F. Supp. 3d 118, 2021 DNH 152 (D.N.H. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 17-cr-185-LM-1 Opinion No. 2021 DNH 152 P Yoelfi Feliz

ORDER

The defendant, Yoelfi Feliz, moves for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See doc. nos. 23 and 28. Feliz argues that his recent leukemia

diagnosis gives rise to an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence

reduction. The government concedes that Feliz has demonstrated an extraordinary

and compelling reason for release but nevertheless objects based on the sentencing

factors. The court held a hearing via video on Feliz’s motion on September 27, 2021.

Due to a COVID-19 positive test result in Feliz’s unit the morning of the hearing,

the prison was unable to permit Feliz to attend the hearing. For the reasons

explained below, Feliz’s motion is granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court may grant a sentence reduction, otherwise known as “compassionate

release,” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). That statute provides in relevant part:

[T]he court, 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, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; ...

and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

A prisoner seeking a sentence reduction under this statute must make three

showings. See United States v. Patten, Crim. No. 18-cr-073-LM-1, 2021 WL

275444, at *1 (D.N.H. Jan. 27, 2021); United States v. Fields, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___,

2021 WL 3518832, at *2 (D.N.H. Aug. 9, 2021). First, the prisoner must show that

he either fully exhausted his administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”) or that he waited thirty days after BOP received his request to seek a

sentence reduction on his behalf. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); Patten, 2021 WL

275444, at *1. Second, he must show that there are “extraordinary and compelling

reasons” for a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). “[T]he court has

‘broad discretion to determine what constitutes an extraordinary and compelling

reason under § 3582(c)(1)A)’ and may consider ‘any’ of the defendant’s reasons for

release,” regardless of whether those reasons are consistent with the Sentencing

Commission’s policy statement on compassionate release. Fields, 2021 WL

3518832, at *6 (quoting United States v. Trenkler, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL

1811652, at *7 (D. Mass. May 6, 2021)); see id. at *2-6 (explaining why the

2 Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on compassionate release, U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13, is not applicable to motions for compassionate release filed by prisoners).

Finally, the court must “consider[ ] the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the

extent they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2017, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment against

Feliz. In Count I, the grand jury charged Feliz with conspiracy to make a false

statement during the acquisition of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(a)(6). In

Count II, the grand jury charged him with possession of a firearm in furtherance of

a drug trafficking crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Feliz was arrested on December

18, 2017, and he has been in custody on these charges since that time. On March

19, 2018, Feliz entered guilty pleas on both counts of the indictment without the

benefit of a plea agreement.

Feliz was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months’

imprisonment on Count II, to run consecutively to any incarcerative sentence on the

Count I. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The advisory sentencing guidelines’s

recommendation for the conspiracy charge was 18-24 months; however, the court

varied downward to 10 months. The court’s variance was based largely on the fact

that Feliz, who was 20 years old at the time of sentencing, had not previously

served an incarcerative sentence. See doc. no. 22 at 23-25 (transcript of sentencing

hearing). The court also factored into its sentence the fact that Feliz had never

3 received treatment for his issues with drug addiction, mental health, and anger

management, as well as his relative youth at the time of the instant offenses. See

id. Given the 10-month sentence on Count I and the mandatory 60-month,

consecutive sentence on Count II, the court ultimately sentenced Feliz to 70 months’

imprisonment. See id. at 27; see also doc. no. 18 at 2 (judgment).1

As of the date of Feliz’s hearing on the instant motion he had served

approximately 45.5 months, which is 75% of his 70-month sentence (counting

anticipated good-time credits). According to the government, Feliz’s estimated

release date is March 12, 2023—18 months from now.

DISCUSSION

The government does not dispute that Feliz has exhausted his administrative

remedies. Thus, the court begins by assessing whether there are extraordinary and

compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have held that a

generalized risk of infection by the virus is not, by itself, sufficient to constitute an

extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. See United States v.

Ramirez, 459 F. Supp. 3d 333, 337-38 (D. Mass. 2020) (collecting cases). “On the

other hand, a combination of health and age factors that put a prisoner at a

substantially higher risk due to COVID-19 along with a documented risk of the

1 The court also recommended that Feliz participate in BOP’s Residential

Drug Treatment Program (RDAP).

4 disease in the facility where the defendant is incarcerated may demonstrate

extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce the prisoner’s sentence.” United

States v. Bischoff, 460 F. Supp. 3d 122, 125 (D.N.H. 2020).

When determining whether a defendant is at a particularly high risk of

experiencing a severe illness from COVID-19, courts have generally looked to the

CDC guidelines. See, e.g., Patten, 2021 WL 275444, at *3. Based on information

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States of America v. P Jared Stottlar
2025 DNH 012 (D. New Hampshire, 2025)
United States of America v. William Looney
2021 DNH 185 (D. New Hampshire, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
565 F. Supp. 3d 118, 2021 DNH 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-v-p-yoelfi-feliz-nhd-2021.