Bido v. United States

Background

Noel Bido moved under the First Step Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for compassionate release, meaning a reduction of his prison sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons. He also sought home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act. The order also addressed filings in related civil case No. 19-cv-8388 (RJS).

Bido had pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and possessing, using, and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court had imposed a combined 90-month prison sentence after considering his violent conduct, his youth, lack of family support, and other mitigating circumstances. His projected release date was January 8, 2022.

Bido had obesity, with a body mass index of about 50.1, and high blood pressure. He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic, his health conditions, and prison conditions justified relief. He alleged that the Bureau of Prisons had limited showers, failed to provide cleaning supplies, distributed rotten and cold food, and lacked adequate medical preparation for the virus. The government opposed the requests because of the seriousness of Bido’s crimes.

Compassionate Release

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a court to reduce a prison sentence when extraordinary and compelling reasons support a reduction and the reduction is consistent with the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors include the seriousness and circumstances of the offense, the need for just punishment and respect for the law, and the need for deterrence.

The court stated that Bido’s health could provide an extraordinary and compelling reason that might support early release. But it concluded that the sentencing factors required denial. Bido’s crimes included violent robberies, shooting at members of a rival gang, and participation in an organization that terrorized a community. The court held that reducing the sentence would undermine the goals of the original sentence.

The court also rejected Bido’s prison-condition arguments as grounds for compassionate release. It noted that inmates continued to receive hygiene and sanitation items, Bido did not allege that the Bureau of Prisons failed to keep cells clean, and his allegations about inedible or cold food lacked details about frequency, replacement, or missed meals.

The court separately rejected Bido’s claim that the medical staff’s response to COVID-19 violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The order noted that Bido continued to receive daily medication, the facility had taken steps to limit movement, and, at the time, no inmates there had died from the virus and only two had active cases. The court therefore could not conclude that the Bureau of Prisons had failed to take reasonable measures to protect Bido’s safety.

Home Confinement

The court held that the CARES Act and related federal law authorized the Bureau of Prisons—not the court—to decide whether a prisoner may serve the remainder of a sentence in home confinement. The court therefore lacked authority to order Bido’s transfer to home confinement.

The court explained that it could recommend that the Bureau of Prisons consider home confinement. Given Bido’s health conditions, projected release date, and the ongoing pandemic, it recommended that the Bureau of Prisons promptly consider placing him in home confinement.

Disposition

The court denied Bido’s motion. The clerk was directed to mail him the order and terminate the pending entries associated with the motion in both listed cases. To the extent Bido also sought appointment of counsel, that request was moot because the compassionate-release motion was denied.