Otero v. United States

Background

Angel Otero pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and possessing a firearm in connection with both a crime of violence and a drug-trafficking offense. The firearm conviction was under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In January 2017, the court imposed an aggregate 150-month prison sentence: 90 months on the racketeering-conspiracy count and a consecutive 60 months on the firearm count.

Otero later filed two motions. In his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, he sought to vacate the firearm conviction. In his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), he sought immediate release or another reduction based primarily on COVID-19 conditions and claimed worsening mental-health problems.

Section 2255 Motion

Otero relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis, which held that the “residual clause” in the definition of a crime of violence under Section 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. The court recognized that racketeering conspiracy generally does not qualify as a crime of violence under the statute’s remaining “elements clause.”

The court nevertheless held that Otero’s firearm conviction remained valid because the firearm offense also rested on a drug-trafficking predicate. Otero’s plea agreement expressly identified the narcotics conspiracy as one predicate, and during his plea hearing he admitted participating in drug sales and using, carrying, or possessing firearms in connection with the Crew’s drug-trafficking activities. The court therefore concluded that the invalidity of the crime-of-violence predicate did not require vacating the firearm conviction.

The court also noted that Otero’s plea agreement contained waivers of certain appeals and collateral challenges, including challenges under Section 2255 and requests for sentence modification under Section 3582(c) for sentences within or below the stipulated Guidelines range. Although the court determined that the waiver appeared to apply, it did not enforce it because the Government had not raised it. The court likewise found that the Government had waived a procedural-default argument based on Otero’s failure to raise the claim on direct appeal.

Compassionate Release Motion

The court found that the COVID-19 pandemic, standing alone, did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. It noted improved conditions at Otero’s facility and that Otero had repeatedly declined COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations. The court also found that Otero’s submissions described serious mental-health diagnoses and symptoms, but that his Bureau of Prisons records did not show that he had reported an acute need for treatment or that prison clinicians had identified a need for more intensive treatment.

The court separately concluded that the length and totality of the pandemic-related confinement conditions—including lockdowns, reduced programming and visitation, and health risks—were harsher than the court could have anticipated when it imposed the sentence in 2017. It held that these conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

The court then considered the statutory sentencing factors, including the seriousness of Otero’s offense, his history, his conduct while incarcerated, his participation in prison programs, and the time he had already spent detained. The violent nature of the offense weighed against a reduction, while the unusually harsh pandemic conditions and Otero’s efforts in prison weighed in favor. On balance, the court reduced his sentence by 18 months.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Otero’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal of that portion of the order and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It granted in part Otero’s compassionate-release motion under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), reducing his aggregate prison term from 150 months to 132 months. All other aspects of the sentence remained in effect. The court also directed the Government to send the order to relevant Bureau of Prisons personnel for review of the mental-health-treatment directive in Otero’s judgment and commitment order.