United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
Brock Hornby, United States District Judge.
2014, I sentenced Walter Scott Fox, III to ten years in
prison for bank fraud and attempted tax evasion. Judgment at
2 (ECF No. 61). Recently Fox filed a pro se motion
for a 24-month reduction in his sentence under what is
sometimes called the compassionate release provision of
federal sentencing law. The government has opposed the
enactment of the First Step Act in December 2018,
compassionate release was available only if the Bureau of
Prisons filed a motion requesting it.Now, however, the court can
in some circumstances act on such a motion without the
BOP's recommendation-for example, if 30 days go by after
the prisoner makes a request of the warden at his
facility. Fox has satisfied that prerequisite.
statute in its current form provides that a court may reduce
a prison sentence if it finds that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and that
“such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
the First Step Act amendment the United States Sentencing
Commission promulgated the following policy statement:
Upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of
imprisonment (and may impose a term of supervised release
with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved
portion of the original term of imprisonment) if, after
considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, the court
(1) (A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the
(B) The defendant (i) is at least 70 years old; and (ii) has
served at least 30 years in prison pursuant to a sentence
imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) for the offense or
offenses for which the defendant is imprisoned;
(2) The defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other
person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. §
(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Commentary, the Commission elaborated on what are
“extraordinary and compelling reasons”:
1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.─Provided the
defendant meets the requirements of subdivision (2),
extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under any ...