United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Philip
Johnson's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Dkt. No. 125). Having thoroughly
considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record,
the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS
the motion for the reasons explained herein.
January 5, 1990, following Mr. Johnson's conviction of
ten counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a), ten counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and seven counts of carrying a
firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c), the Court sentenced Mr. Johnson to a total of
39 years and nine months of incarceration followed by five
years of supervised release. (See Dkt. No. 132-2.)
Mr. Johnson is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Terminal Island and is scheduled
for release on January 29, 2024. (Dkt. No. 131 at 2.)
about July 9, 2019, Mr. Johnson filed a request for
compassionate release with the warden of FCI Terminal Island.
(Id.) On September 3, 2019, Mr. Johnson, proceeding
pro se, filed a motion for compassionate release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Dkt. No.
125.) The Government has responded and
recommends that Mr. Johnson's motion be granted.
(See Dkt. No. 131.) Defense counsel has appeared for
Mr. Johnson and concurs with the Government's
recommendation that the motion be granted. (See Dkt.
December 21, 2018, the First Step Act of 2018 was signed into
law and implemented significant reforms to the criminal
justice system. Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).
Following the First Step Act:
the court . . . upon motion of the defendant after the
defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to
appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion
[for compassionate release] on the defendant's behalf or
the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by
the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is
earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose
a term of probation or supervised release with or without
conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the
original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors
set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable, if it finds that--
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at
least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed
under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which
the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination
has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that
the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other
person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see First Step Act
§ 603, 132 Stat. at 5293; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(t) (directing the Sentencing Commission to
promulgate policy statements describing “what should be
considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence
reduction, including the criteria to be applied . . .
.”). The relevant Sentencing Commission policy
statement provides that a court may reduce a sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A):
if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, the
court determines that-
(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