govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cr-00002-5

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 v. 
 
ANDERSON JOSE COUTINHO-SILVA, 
 Defendant. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION 
 
No. 10-cr-00002-JMY 
 
MEMORANDUM 
Younge, J. January 14, 2025 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 Currently before this Court is Defendant Anderson Jose Coutinho-Silva’s Pro Se Motion 
for Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 126).1 For the 
reasons set forth in this Memorandum, Defendant’s Motion is denied. 
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On July 25, 2011, Defendant Anderson Jose Coutinho-Silva was sentenced to 207 months 
of imprisonment in connection with federal robbery and firearm charges. (ECF No. 38). While in 
Bureau of Prison’s custody, Defendant has been found guilty of numerous disciplinary 
infractions, including possession of a dangerous weapon, possession of drugs and alcohol, setting 
fires in his cell, and assault without serious injury. (ECF No. 66, p. 6-13). 
Starting in 2014, and over the course of about eight years, Defendant filed five pro se 
motions for compassionate release, which were all denied by United States District Court Judge 
Gene E.K. Pratter. (ECF No. 81). On January 2, 2025, Defendant filed another motion for 
 
1 When applicable, the Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system, 
which does not always match the document’s internal pagination. 

2 
 
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 126). Specifically, 
Defendant requests to be released because his father is “88 years old,” “he [does] not have much 
longer to go,” and Defendant would like to “[see] him before he die[s].” (ECF No. 126). The 
Government opposes Defendant’s request—citing the lack of an extraordinary or compelling 
reason warranting release. (ECF No. 127). 
At present, Defendant’s minimum release date is September 25, 2025. (ECF No. 127). 
Then, at the conclusion of Defendant’s sentence, he is facing administrative deportation and 
removal to his native Brazil. (ECF No. 127). 
III. LEGAL STANDARD 
 The compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First 
Step Act on December 21, 2018, provides, in pertinent part, that a district court may not modify 
a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, “upon motion 
of the defendant,” a court “may reduce the term of imprisonment… after considering the factors 
set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that… extraordinary 
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”2 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis 
added). 
 The statute does not define the phrase “extraordinary and compelling” in the “threshold 
question that determines a person’s eligibility for compassionate release.” United States v. 
Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360, 365 (3d Cir. 2024) (internal citations omitted). Instead, Congress 
 
2 Prior to a defendant’s motion, the statute also requires the defendant to have “fully exhausted 
all administrative rights.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government has not contested whether 
Defendant has satisfied this requirement, so this Court will not address this issue. Furthermore, 
the Court can deny the motion on other grounds. 

3 
 
instructed the Sentencing Commission to “describe what should be considered extraordinary and 
compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of 
specific examples.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). The Sentencing Commission, in relevant part, provides in 
Section 1B1.13(b) that “extraordinary and compelling” exists in the following circumstance: “the 
incapacitation of the defendant’s parent when the defendant would be the only available 
caregiver for the parent.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C). 
 The defendant “has the burden to prove extraordinary and compelling reasons exist [to 
warrant compassionate release].” United States v. Adeyemi, 470 F. Supp. 3d 489, 512 (E.D. Pa. 
2020). 
IV. DISCUSSION 
 Defendant’s argument for compassionate release centers on his need to see his elderly 
father prior to his father’s death. More specifically, Defendant requests immediate release 
because “he only [has] 8 months left to finish his sentence[] and [his] father do[es] not have 8 
months left.” (ECF No. 126). Defendant’s familial circumstances are closest to invoking 
Subsection (b)(3)(C), as defined above. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C). 
 While this Court sympathizes with Defendant’s circumstances, compassionate release in 
such situations is only available if (1) the defendant’s parent is incapacitated; and (2) that 
defendant is the only available caregiver for the parent. See United States v. Duprey, No. 10-
00101, 2024 WL 3873938, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2024) (denying compassionate release under 
U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(3)(C) because the defendant failed to demonstrate “incapacity” and sole 
caregiver status); see also United States v. Taylor, No. 06-00699-3, 2024 WL 3594315, at *6 
(D.N.J. July 31, 2024) (denying compassionate release under U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(3)(C) because 
the “[d]efendant has not established himself as ‘the only available caregiver for the parent.’”); 

4 
 
United States v. Cobb, No. 18-576-2, 2022 WL 3083034, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2022) (denying 
compassionate release because the defendant “fail[ed] to establish that his mother is 
incapacitated” and “fail[ed] to establish he is the only available person to care for his mother.”). 
Here, Defendant does not provide evidence that his father is incapacitated nor that he is the sole 
available caregiver. Therefore, Defendant has not demonstrated the “extraordinary and 
compelling reason” for compassionate release. 
V. CONCLUSION 
 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Compassionate Release is 
denied without prejudice. 
 An appropriate Order follows. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 /s/ John Milton Younge 
 Judge John Milton Younge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight