20-3240
United States v. Jaramillo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED
BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE
NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A
COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 2nd day of June, two thousand twenty-one.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
ROBERT D. SACK,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. 20-3240
PEDRO JARAMILLO, AKA ENRIQUE
JARAMILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________________
FOR APPELLEE: Andrea Griswold, Thomas McKay,
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, for Audrey
Strauss, U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, New York, New
York.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Pedro Jaramillo, pro se, White Deer,
Pennsylvania.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Swain, Ch. J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-appellant Pedro Jaramillo, pro se and incarcerated, appeals
from the denial of his motion for compassionate release and subsequent motion for
reconsideration of that denial. Jaramillo argues that his vulnerability to COVID-19
infection justified his early release. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that
Jaramillo had not set forth any medical conditions that put him at a higher risk if
infected. Jaramillo then filed a motion for reconsideration, identifying his underlying
medical conditions that purportedly put him at a higher risk of serious illness or death.
The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Jaramillo's health conditions did
not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Another motion for
reconsideration, brought before the one at issue here, is not on appeal. We assume the
parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a district court, "after considering the factors
set forth in Section 3553(a)," to "reduce the term of imprisonment" if it finds
2
"extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A); see United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 237 (2d Cir. 2020). When
considering § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, district courts have "broad" discretion. Brooker,
976 F.3d at 237. We review the denial of motions for "discretionary sentence reduction"
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Holloway, 956 F.3d 660, 664 (2d Cir. 2020); see
also United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32, 52 (2d Cir. 2021) ("The denial of a motion for
reconsideration is reviewable only for abuse of discretion.").
We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny
Jaramillo's motion for compassionate release or his subsequent motion for
reconsideration.
As to the initial motion for compassionate release, the district court was
within its "broad" discretion, Brooker, 976 F.3d at 237, to deny this motion because
Jaramillo did not proffer any specific medical conditions that would make him
particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, nor did he assert that there were cases of COVID-
19 in his facility.
In Jaramillo's motion for reconsideration, he asserted that he had been
diagnosed with sleep apnea and "breathing conditions," "sleeping disorders," "other
specified symptoms and signs involving the circulatory and respiratory systems,"
prediabetes, anxiety disorders, and hypertension, and he provided medical records in
support. The district court considered this new evidence and concluded that Jaramillo
3
had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence
reduction because, under the then-current CDC guidelines, none of the conditions he
listed had been determined to increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19;
hypertension was only listed as a condition that "might" increase the risk. This was not
an abuse of discretion. A district court may, in exercising its broad discretion, rely on
the CDC's guidance to determine whether certain health conditions constitute
extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant a sentence reduction.
Jaramillo argues that the district court "wrongly stated that sleep apnea is
not a major risk for COVID-19," but the CDC guidelines did not and do not list sleep
apnea as a medical condition that poses a risk for complications from COVID-19. See
Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, COVID-19, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/
2019-ncov/index.html (search sleep apnea) (last visited May 11, 2021). Moreover, while
the CDC guidelines currently state that hypertension, from which Jaramillo allegedly
suffers, "possibly . . . can make you more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19," Ctrs.
for Disease Control & Prevention, People with Certain Medical Conditions,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-
medical-conditions.html (last visited May 11, 2021), when the district court ruled on the
motion for reconsideration, the CDC guidelines merely stated that hypertension "might"
increase the risks associated with COVID-19, and only "limited data" supported that
conclusion, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 68 at 2.
4
Jaramillo also challenges the district court's determination on the basis
that other district courts have granted compassionate release to inmates who have
health conditions similar to his. But none of the cases Jaramillo cites concerns an
inmate who suffers from the same set of conditions that he does; in each case the inmate
suffered from at least one additional condition. Further, even if the health conditions
in those cases were exactly the same as Jaramillo's, we have acknowledged that
sentencing decisions are discretionary, fact specific, and subject to variation among
district courts. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 193 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[O]nce we
are sure that the sentence resulted from the reasoned exercise of discretion, we must
defer heavily to the expertise of district judges.").
We have considered all of Jaramillo's remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Jaramillo has also moved to appeal the denial of his motion for compassionate release.
To the extent he is seeking the Court's permission to appeal, the motion is unnecessary,
and as we have now considered his appeal on the merits, the motion is DENIED as
moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5