Simon v. United States

Background

Daryl Simon filed a motion without a lawyer seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act. Simon had pleaded guilty to access-device fraud and failure to appear. In 2010, Judge Stephen C. Robinson sentenced him to 285 months in prison and three years of post-release supervision, and ordered him to pay $243,164.66 in restitution.

Simon had previously sought compassionate release based on the COVID-19 pandemic, but the court denied that request in 2020 and denied reconsideration in 2021. In his second motion, Simon argued that his mother’s poor health required him to serve as her caregiver. He also relied on his rehabilitation, an amendment to the sentencing guidelines, and prison conditions related to the pandemic. The Bureau of Prisons opposed the motion.

Administrative exhaustion

The court found that Simon had satisfied the requirement to first seek relief from the Bureau of Prisons. Simon had asked the warden for compassionate release based on his mother’s health, and the request was denied on July 7, 2023.

The government argued that Simon could not rely in court on arguments that he had not presented to the Bureau of Prisons. The court rejected that argument. It held that the statute did not require Simon to raise every possible supporting argument in his administrative request. The court also stated that, even if such issue-by-issue exhaustion were required, Simon had raised the central issue—his mother’s health.

Extraordinary and compelling reasons

Compassionate release requires the court to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for reducing the sentence. The court found that Simon’s mother required physical assistance and memory care because of increasing forgetfulness and chronic arthritis. The government questioned whether she was sufficiently incapacitated and whether Simon was the only available caregiver, but it did not otherwise dispute Simon’s description of her condition or his mother’s letter stating that she lived alone and needed care.

The court also considered Simon’s rehabilitation. Simon expressed remorse, completed treatment and vocational programs, mentored other incarcerated people, and submitted supportive letters. The court held that rehabilitation could not alone establish an extraordinary and compelling reason, but it supported that finding when combined with Simon’s family circumstances.

The court did not reach Simon’s separate arguments based on Amendment 792 to the sentencing guidelines or pandemic-related prison conditions because it found sufficient grounds for relief based on his family circumstances and rehabilitation.

Sentencing factors and public safety

The court also considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the need for punishment and deterrence, and protection of the public. Although the court recognized that Simon’s offense was serious, it noted that he had been incarcerated for more than 182 months and had earned 765 days of good-time credit—more than 70% of his 285-month sentence.

The court concluded that the time Simon had served sufficiently reflected the seriousness of his offense, provided punishment, promoted respect for the law, and provided deterrence. It also considered that Simon would remain subject to supervised release. Under the applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement, the court further found that Simon’s age, prison record, and nonviolent conviction suggested little danger to the public upon release.

Disposition

Judge Ramos granted Simon’s motion for compassionate release and reduced his term of imprisonment to time served. The order was stayed for 15 days to establish a release plan and make travel arrangements. All other provisions of Simon’s original sentence remained unchanged.