United States v. Barron

Citation: Not availableDocket: Criminal No. 1995-0088

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; July 1, 2022; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Percy Barron filed an Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing serious medical conditions that heighten his risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The government opposed the motion, arguing that Barron's health issues do not warrant release, his COVID-19 vaccination reduces the likelihood of severe illness, and the sentencing factors do not favor his release. The Court reviewed various documents related to Barron's case, including his original indictment and sentencing details. Barron was convicted on multiple serious charges, including armed robbery and felony murder, and was initially sentenced to 409 years and 4 months to life. Following an appeal, his sentence was reduced to 273 years and 8 months to life. Ultimately, the Court denied Barron's motion for compassionate release, considering the government's arguments and the circumstances surrounding his conviction and sentence.

On April 27, 2020, Mr. Barron filed a pro se motion for immediate release from detention at USP McCreary due to COVID-19 risks, requesting either release or transfer to a medical facility. The Court denied this motion on July 22, 2020, without prejudice, citing Mr. Barron's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of authority to order a transfer. The Court noted Mr. Barron had served twenty-six years of a 210-year sentence. On August 5, 2020, the Court issued a recommendation for Mr. Barron’s transfer to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, but as of the last update, the Bureau of Prisons had not acted on this recommendation. On June 30, 2021, Mr. Barron filed a second motion for compassionate release, citing extraordinary and compelling reasons related to his age and health. The government opposed this motion, arguing that his health concerns and criminal history did not justify early release. Mr. Barron submitted further replies in support, including an affidavit from his uncle offering housing assistance upon release. He is currently fifty-three years old and has served over twenty-eight years in prison. Under federal law, courts generally cannot modify a sentence unless specific conditions are met, such as exhausting administrative rights and demonstrating extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The evaluation of such reasons has been guided by a U.S. Sentencing Commission policy statement from 2018.

The Sentencing Commission has been unable to update its compassionate release policy statement since early 2019 due to a lack of quorum, which fails to incorporate changes from the First Step Act allowing defendants to file for compassionate release independently. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the outdated policy statement does not apply to these defendant-filed motions and emphasized that district courts should evaluate whether a defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) without treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding. However, the policy statement may still offer guidance on what constitutes extraordinary and compelling circumstances, such as serious health issues that hinder a defendant’s ability to care for themselves in prison. 

The policy also allows for "other reasons," including circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, to be considered as extraordinary and compelling. Courts must consider the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when deciding on sentence reductions, which involves a discretionary balance of various factors related to the offense and the defendant. Additionally, while the policy statement's requirements regarding danger to the community previously served as a categorical bar to release, this is no longer applicable to defendant-filed motions.

Courts must assess whether to continue a defendant's imprisonment despite extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence modification. Mr. Barron met the exhaustion requirement for compassionate release by requesting it from the warden of USP McCreary, which was denied due to insufficient justification related to COVID-19 exposure. He claims his medical issues, including hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and a cornea transplant, warrant early release. While both parties acknowledge the CDC's designation of several of these conditions as COVID-19 risk factors, the government contests the severity of Mr. Barron's risks, arguing these conditions are well-managed in prison and that his kidney disease has been in remission since 2016. The Court is not convinced that Mr. Barron’s circumstances are extraordinary or compelling enough for release, especially considering he is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. There are currently no known COVID-19 cases at USP McCreary, and the facility is operating under strict procedures. Consequently, the Court finds Mr. Barron's health is not in imminent danger, and the conditions do not meet the required threshold for compassionate release.

Widespread vaccination availability and low COVID-19 infection rates in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities mitigate the risk of complications for inmates, including Mr. Barron, who suffers from certain health conditions. The court determined that these health issues do not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. Furthermore, a reduction in Mr. Barron’s sentence would contradict the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly due to the serious nature of his offenses, which include multiple counts of armed robbery, assault with intent to murder, and first-degree felony murder. Judge Kessler noted that Mr. Barron’s criminal activity was not a brief incident but a prolonged crime spree, emphasizing his lack of remorse or attempts to disengage during the offenses. 

Arguments for his release, citing the severity of similar cases, were dismissed as Mr. Barron failed to provide comparable cases involving first-degree murder. His extensive disciplinary record in prison, comprising over thirty pages of serious infractions, further undermined his request for early release despite his plans for post-release housing and employment. The court concluded that the imposed sentence is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offenses, promote respect for the law, and serve as just punishment.

Mr. Barron has served approximately 28 years of a sentence that mandates a minimum of 130 years. Reducing his sentence at this point would downplay the seriousness of his offense, as referenced in case law indicating that early release could create disparities among similarly situated defendants. The minimum sentence for a first-degree murder conviction in D.C. is thirty years, and courts have previously denied compassionate release for similar offenses, even for defendants demonstrating significant rehabilitation. The goals of sentencing—promoting respect for the law, ensuring just punishment, deterring crime, and protecting the public—would not be fulfilled by reducing Mr. Barron's sentence. He has not shown extraordinary or compelling circumstances required for compassionate release under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), and the factors outlined in Section 3553(a) favor maintaining his current sentence. Consequently, the Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release is denied.