govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_19-cr-00276-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
United States of America 
 
v. 
 
Julio Paris 
 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 
No. 19-cr-276-16 
 
 
October 25, 2021 
 
 
ORDER AND DECISION DENYING  
SECOND MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [DKT. 838] 
 
 Before the Court is a motion for compassionate release filed by Defendant, 
Julio Paris, seeking a sentence reduction to time served pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(1)(A).  [Mot., Dkt. 838].  Mr. Paris argues that “extraordinary and compelling 
reasons” warrant a reduction in his sentence due to (1) the ongoing COVID -19 
pandemic, which has made his sentence much more punitive than intended, (2) his 
medical condition that renders him especially vulnerable to serious illness or death 
if infected with COVID-19, and (3) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor s as applied to his 
case.  [ Id.].  The Court ordered Mr. Paris to supplement his motion to indicate 
whether he has received or been offered a COVID -19 vaccine.  Mr. Paris indicated 
in a supplemental filing that he has refused the vaccine for  religious reasons.  
[Suppl., Dkt. 848].  The Government filed an opposition to t he motion arguing that 
(1) Mr. Paris has failed to provide evidence of a heightened risk factor or 
comorbidity that puts him at risk of life- threatening consequences if infected with 
COVID-19, (2) Mr. Paris’s prior infection, where he had mild to no symptoms, 
suggests he is less likely to be seriously reinfected, and (3) the § 3553(a) factors 
do not weigh in favor of release.   [Opp., Dkt. 850].   
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 1 of 10
2 
 
 After carefully reviewing the pleadings and exhibits, the Court denies Mr. 
Paris’s second motion for compassionate release.   
I. BACKGROUND  
A. Case Background  
On May 28, 2020, Mr. Paris executed a plea agreement in which he agreed to 
plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a 
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and a mixture and 
substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846.  [Plea, Dkt. 315].  The plea agreement provided that 
the estimated custodial sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines 
was 37 to 46 months.  [ Id.].   Mr. Paris agreed to waive his right to appeal the 
sentence if it does not exceed 46 months of imprisonment.  [Id.].   
On November 12, 2020, Mr. Paris appeared before this Court for sentencing.  
After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the Court sentenced Mr. Paris to 46 months 
imprisonment, to be followed by three years supervised release and the $100 
special assessment.  [Judgement, Dkt. 682].  The Court also ordered that the time 
served in state custody, beginning May 4, 2020 until sentencing, is to count  as 
credit towards this sentence.  [Id.].  Mr. Paris has served approximately 17 months 
of the 46 months sentence, which is equivalent to 40% of the sentence imposed.     
Three months after sentencing, Mr. Paris filed his first motion for 
compassionate release.  [First Mot., Dkt. 768].  The Court denied the motion for 
failure to state good cause.  [Order, Dkt. 782].  Specifically, the Court found that Mr. 
Paris did not meet his burden in establishing extraordinary and compelling reasons 
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 2 of 10
3 
 
warranting a sentence reduction because his claim of medical vulnerabilities was 
unsupported by any citations to the 428 pages of medical records provided.  [ Id.].  
The Court denied the motion without prejudice to re -filing with proper citations to 
the medical records.  [Id.].   
B. Health Conditions  
Mr. Paris claims in his motion that he “suffered a serious infection and a 
drug-induced liver injury resulting from the same while in the custody of the 
Connecticut Department of Corrections in 2020.”  [Mot. at 5].  The motion goes on 
to state that “[a]t the time of discharge from Yale [New Haven Hospital] he was 
indicating liver enzyme abnormalities, for which he should follow up as an 
outpatient.”  [Mot. at 5].  The motion cites to “Yale Record, Pages 71, 133– 134” to 
support this claim.  [ Id.].  However, the medical records provided to the Court are 
not paginated in a way that distinguishes “Yale Records” from the other records 
contained therein.  Nor did the motion provide a table of contents that would allow 
the Court to distinguish the types of records.  To avoid denying the motion a 
second time for failure to provide factual support for the relief sought , the Court 
went through the medical records to ascertain the relevant portion of the 
voluminous medical record submitted in support of the motion.   This was an 
unnecessary waste of judicial resources that was undertaken to protect Mr. Paris’s 
rights.   
It appears that the motion relies on pages 264 and 323 to 327 of the medical 
records.  However, these pages do  not support Mr. Paris’s claim that he has liver 
abnormalities, let alone establish that Mr. Paris has a medical condition that puts 
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 3 of 10
4 
 
him at risk of serious illness if infect ed with COVID -19.  Page 264 provides a 
summary of an August 2020 ultrasound of Mr. Paris’s upper right quadrant, which 
is where the liver is, and concludes the results were  “unremarkable.”  [Med. 
Records, PDF p. 264].  The second set of pages, 323 to 327, contain lab results from 
August 2020, which has a flag on Mr. Paris’s MPV level.  [ Id. at 323–27].  The lab 
results indicate that the reference range for MPV levels is 6.0 to 11.0 fL and Mr. 
Paris’s MPV level was 11.5 fL.  [Id.].  The medical records nor the motion, indicate 
what an MPV is.  Nor has Plaintiff produced any evidence that what a ppears to be 
a nominally heightened MPV level  exposes him to a heightened risk of serious 
illness if he were to contract COVID -19.  The failure to explain the significance of 
the lab results alone is a justification for rejecting the claim.   However, based on 
the Court’s own research, a high MPV (or mean platelet volume) could be a sign of 
serious disease—such as cancer —and also “doesn’t mean anything on it s own.”
1  
Thus, the Court finds Mr. Paris  has failed to establish that he has any liver 
abnormalities that warrant a sentence reduction.   
The motion also reports that “Mr. Paris was already severely ill while an 
inmate with the Connecticut Department of Corrections as a result of the Covid-19 
pandemic” and cites to DOC health records.  Again, Plaintiff did not cite to any 
portion of these voluminous r ecords, requiring the Court to review the 615 pages 
of medical records to determine whether there is any factual support for a sentence 
reduction.  The Court’s review revealed that there is none.  Mr. Paris did test 
 
1 Understanding Your MPV Test Results, Healthline.com, available at: 
https://www.healthline.com/health/mpv-test (last visited Apr. 19, 2021).   
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 4 of 10
5 
 
positive for COVID-19 on January 14, 2021 but he did not experience any COVID-19 
symptoms in the weeks following.  [Med. Records at pp 52–60].  Therefore, the 
Court rejects Mr. Paris’s claim that he has experienced serious illness when 
previously infected with COVID -19 or that he is at heightened risk for a serious 
illness should he contract COVID-19 again.   
C. Correctional Facility  
Mr. Paris reports he is currently serving his period of imprisonment at 
Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center (“Wyatt”) in Rhode Island.  The Court receives 
regular reports from Wyatt official s on the protocols used to protect the staff and 
detainees.  Those reports show that Wy att staff have implemented rigorous and 
highly effective procedures to guard against the spread of COVID-19 and to assure 
those who contract the disease are quarantined and treated effectively. 
Defendant’s relatively benign course of COVID-19 and recovery from the disease 
exemplifies the efficacy of Wyatt’s treatment process.   
II. LEGAL STANDARD  
Under the First Step Act of 2018, federal prisoners may petition courts 
directly for reduction of their sentences, and judges may grant such requests if 
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” support reduction. See  First Step Act of 
2018, Section 603(b), Pub. L. 115- 391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018) (amending 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(1)(A)(i)) (“First Step Act”). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) now authorizes a court 
to modify a term of imprisonment: 
upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion 
of the defendant af ter the defendant has fully exhausted all 
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to 
bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from 
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 5 of 10
6 
 
the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, 
whichever is earlier. 
 
Where this exhaustion requirement is met, a court may reduce the defendant’s 
sentence if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 
reduction” and “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements 
issued by the Sentencing Commission.”   Id.  The Court must also consider “the 
factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.”  Id. 
“The defendant bears the burden of showing that she is entitled to a sentence 
reduction.” United States v. Gagne, No. 3:18-CR-242 (VLB), 2020 WL 1640152, at *3 
(D. Conn. Apr. 2, 2020). 
I. ANALYSIS  
a. Exhaustion  
T]he First Step Act’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional.”  United 
States v. Scparta, No. 18- cr-578(AJN), 2020 WL 1910481, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 
2020).  “Courts have excused failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement in 
this context for equitable reasons like futility.”  Id. at *5.   
Mr. Paris argues that he does not have to exhaust administrative remedies 
because an attempt to exhaust would be futile.  This is because he is currently at a 
non-BOP facility.  The Government does not address this argument.   The Court 
will assume he is not in BOP custody because the Government has not addressed 
the issue and thus appears to have conceded it. Further, this Court has previously 
adjudicated a case where the defendant sought compassionate release from the 
warden at Wyatt , who denied the request because Wyatt  is not a BOP facility.  
United States v. Jepsen, 451 F. Supp. 3d 242, 243 (D. Conn. 2020).   That defendant 
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 6 of 10
7 
 
sought compassionate release from the BOP direct ly, which also denied the 
request because the defendant was not at a BOP facility.  Id.  The Court found the 
exhaustion requirements met.  Id. at 245.   
Here, Mr. Paris is at Wyatt like the defendant in Jepsen.  The defendant in 
Jepsen was unable to get a review of his request for compassionate release from 
the facility or from the BOP.  The Court does not have a reason to believe that any 
efforts Mr. Paris would make would result in a different outcome.  In other words, 
any effort made by Mr. Paris to seek a merit -based review of his request for 
compassionate release would be futile because he is at a non- BOP facility.  The 
Court excuses the failure to exhaust administrative remedies because such efforts 
would have been futile.  
b. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons  
At Congress’s direction, the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated 
guidance on the circumstances constituting “extraordinary and compelling” 
reasons. See 28 U.S.C. § 944(t); U.S.S.G. 1B1.13. The U.S. Sentencing Commission 
has not updated its guidance since the enactment of the First Step Act. See 
U.S.S.G. 1B1.1 (Nov. 1, 2018). The Application Notes to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 explain 
that a defendant’s medical condition may constitute “extraordinary and 
compelling” circumstances when:  
(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.--  
(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a 
serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A 
specific prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death 
within a specific time period) is not required. Examples include 
metastatic solid- tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 
(ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.  
[or]  
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 7 of 10
8 
 
(ii) The defendant is--  
(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,  
(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive 
impairment, or  
(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health 
because of the aging process,  
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to 
provide self -care within the environment of a correctional 
facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.  
 
U.S.S.G. 1B1.13, Commentary Application Note 1(A).  Any “other” “extraordinary 
and compelling reason” may also justify relief.  Id. at Commentary Application Note 
1(D).  
“[T]he mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it might 
spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate 
release.”  United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020).  But this Court and 
others have recognized that an inmate’s chronic medical condition that elevates 
his risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 according to the CDC may be such 
an extraordinary and compelling reason.  See United States v. Sanchez, No. 18-CR-
00140-VLB-11, 2020 WL 1933815, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 22, 2020) (collecting cases).  
 Here, as articulated above, Mr. Paris has not provided any evidence to 
support his claim of medical vulnerability that elevates his risk of becoming 
seriously ill from COVID -19.  His claim of liver injury was contradicted by the 
medical records provided.  Further, the evidence tends to show he is not at risk of 
serious illness based on his prior infection where he was symptom free.  Thus, Mr. 
Paris has not established an extraordinary and compelling reason justi fying 
compassionate release.   
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 8 of 10
9 
 
 Further, even if Mr. Paris did have a chronic medical condition, the most 
recent report from Wyatt shows that only one inmate/detainee was infected with 
COVID-19 and over 100 inmates/detainees had received at least one dose of a 
COVID-19 vaccine.  Meaning, the risk of contracting the virus itself is low.  The risk 
is even lower for Mr. Paris who has already been infected with COVID-19.  The CDC 
reports that “[c]ases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain 
rare.”2   
The Court inquired about Mr. Paris’ vaccine status to better assess his risk 
of contracting a serious case of COVID-19.  The Court does not consider Mr. Paris’s 
decision to refuse the vaccine.  
The Court finds that Mr. Paris has not met his burden of establishing an 
extraordinary and compelling reason for his request because (1) he has not 
established he has a medical condition that puts him at a heightened risk of severe 
illness or death if infected with COVID-19, (2) Mr. Paris’s reduced risk of reinfection,  
having already contracted the disease and developed natural antibodies (3), the 
unlikelihood that Mr. Paris would contract a serious case of COVID -19 if he was 
reinfected and (4) Wyatt’s successful track record of mitigating and treating COVID-
19. 
Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Paris has failed to establish extraordinary 
and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction to time served.   
 
 
2 Reinfection with COVID -19, CDC.Gov, available at: 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html (last 
visited Apr. 19, 2021).   
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 9 of 10
10 
 
c. Section 3553(a) Factors  
Though the Court has already found the Mr. Paris has failed to establish an 
extraordinary and compelling reason to justify a sentence reduction, the Court also 
notes that the § 3553(a) factors do not weigh in favor of a sentence reduction.  This 
is because the Court just sentenced Mr. Paris last year  where it applied the § 
3553(a) factors in imposing his sentence.  The sentence as imposed is no greater 
than necessary to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors.  Contrary to Mr. Paris’s argument 
that his sentence has been more punitive than intended, the Court was well-aware 
of the COVID-19 pandemic when it sentenced him.  Mr. Paris has pointed to nothing, 
including his asymptomatic COV ID-19 infection, that is different than what was 
considered at sentencing.  On the contrary, the Court recognized the possibility 
that Mr. Paris would contract COVID-19 and that he could become seriously ill.  Mr. 
Paris did contract the disease and did not become seriously ill.  Thus, the 
conditions of confinement were less dire than the Court knew they could be at the 
time of sentencing. 
Therefore, the § 3553(a) factors weigh against compassionate release.  
II. CONCLUSION  
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court denies Mr. Paris’s second motion 
for compassionate release.   
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
_____/s/_____________ 
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant 
United States District Judge 
 
Dated this day in Hartford, Connecticut: October 25, 2021  
Case 3:19-cr-00276-MPS     Document 926     Filed 10/25/21     Page 10 of 10

Passage view · GavelSight