Vazquez v. United States

Background

Edwin Vazquez sought two forms of relief. First, he moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. Second, he filed a second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), relying on his medical conditions and the conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vazquez had received a 54-month sentence in the 2013 criminal case and an additional consecutive eight-month sentence in the 2019 failure-to-appear case. His Section 2255 arguments concerned only the 2013 case. He argued that he had not received or reviewed the 2013 Presentence Investigation Report, that his lawyer had not maintained adequate contact with him, that counsel had made certain sentencing promises, and that counsel had not advised him about restitution. He also relied on physical and mental-health problems and illnesses and deaths in his family to explain the delay in filing.

Section 2255 Motion

The court held that the Section 2255 motion was untimely as to the 2013 conviction. That conviction became final on November 24, 2015, but Vazquez filed the motion on or about March 24, 2022. The court considered whether equitable tolling—an exception that can extend a filing deadline in extraordinary circumstances when the person acted diligently—applied.

The court found that Vazquez had not shown extraordinary circumstances or reasonable diligence. It credited attorney David Gordon’s sworn statements that he had provided and reviewed the presentence report with Vazquez, discussed appellate rights, and had not refused to communicate with him. The court also relied on the record showing that Vazquez failed to appear at several hearings, did not surrender to serve his sentence, remained a fugitive for more than three years, and did not express an interest in appealing or otherwise challenging the 2013 case during that period. The court further found that Vazquez’s physical and mental-health assertions lacked sufficient detail to justify extending the deadline.

The court therefore denied the Section 2255 motion without a full evidentiary hearing. It also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal from that portion of the decision and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. In a footnote, the court stated that even if the motion had been timely, it would fail on the merits for substantially the reasons given in the Government’s opposition; the ruling itself, however, denied the motion as untimely.

Compassionate Release Motion

Vazquez’s second compassionate-release motion identified blood in his urine, a renal cyst, uncontrolled blood pressure, heart palpitations, breathing problems, a growing lipoma, and a mass below his sternum. The Government argued that these conditions did not amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons and that the Bureau of Prisons was providing appropriate care.

The court determined that the COVID-19 pandemic, considered by itself, did not justify release. Vazquez had been vaccinated, the court found that the facility was operating with minimal modifications and only three inmates had tested positive at the time, and the court concluded that he had not shown an extraordinary and compelling COVID-19 risk.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding the combination of Vazquez’s health deterioration and pandemic-related confinement. Although the court found that he had received appropriate medical care, it concluded that several chronic conditions had worsened during his continued incarceration. It also found that the length and totality of the pandemic-related restrictions and risks made his confinement harsher than could have been anticipated when the sentences were imposed. These circumstances satisfied the court’s standard for extraordinary and compelling reasons.

After considering the federal sentencing factors, including the offenses, Vazquez’s criminal history, and the need to protect the public, the court found that a slight reduction was warranted. It granted in part the second compassionate-release motion and reduced the sentence in Case No. 19 Cr. 540 on Count One from eight months to six months. All other aspects of that sentence remained in full force and effect, and no part of the sentence in Case No. 13 Cr. 869 was modified. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to close the civil case and enter the opinion in the related criminal cases.