`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:15-cr-00077-JCM-VCF Document 192 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`* * *
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-CR-77 JCM (VCF)
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ERIC JAMAR GOODALL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Presently before the court is defendant Eric Goodall’s motion for compassionate release
`
`under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 180). The government filed a response (ECF No. 185),
`
`to which Goodall replied (ECF No. 190). For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES
`
`Goodall’s motion.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Goodall is currently serving his term of incarceration at the Federal Bureau of Prisons
`
`(“BOP”) at Coleman Medium Federal Correctional Institution. (ECF No. 190, at 1). He is
`
`projected to finish his term around November of 2026. Id.
`
`In 2014, Goodall committed a string of armed robberies with his co-defendants over a two-
`
`month period. (Id.). Goodall robbed two Beauty Supply Warehouse stores, two O’Reilly Auto
`
`Parts stores, two Cricket Wireless stores, and a National Jewelry Liquidation Center store. (Id.).
`
`During these robberies, Goodall repeatedly threatened store employees with violence, and even
`
`death, if they did not comply with his demands. (Id.).
`
`Goodall eventually entered into a nonbinding plea agreement with the government and
`
`pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and one count of
`
`brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). (ECF
`
`
`
`James C. Mahan
`U.S. District Judge
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cr-00077-JCM-VCF Document 192 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Nos. 63, 65). As part of his plea agreement, Goodall agreed to a broad waiver of his right to appeal
`
`his conviction or sentence. (ECF No. 63).
`
`This court sentenced Goodall to 168 months incarceration. (ECF No. 151). This sentence
`
`was even shorter than the one contemplated in Goodall’s plea agreement. (ECF No. 63). But,
`
`despite his waiver of appellate rights, Goodall appealed his section 924(c) conviction, arguing that
`
`the statute is unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555 (2021). The
`
`Ninth Circuit dismissed Goodall’s appeal, holding that it was barred by the appellate waiver in his
`
`plea agreement. Id. at 565.
`
`The Supreme Court denied Goodall’s petition for a writ of certiorari. (ECF No. 177).
`
`Goodall now moves this court for compassionate release. The parties do not dispute that Goodall
`
`has exhausted his administrative remedies.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The compassionate release provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First
`
`Step Act; Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018); authorizes the sentencing court to
`
`modify a defendant's sentence in limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court
`
`may consider a motion under section 3582(c)(1)(A) only “upon a motion of the Director of the
`
`Bureau of Prisons” or upon the defendant’s motion after he has fully exhausted his administrative
`
`remedies. Id. The defendant may also move for compassionate release if his application to the
`
`BOP goes unanswered for thirty days. Id.
`
`To grant compassionate release, the court must consider whether: (1) “extraordinary and
`
`compelling reasons” warrant release; (2) release would be “consistent with applicable policy
`
`statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;” and (3) release is warranted under the
`
`“particular circumstances of the case” based on the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United
`
`States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2022). “Although a district court must conclude that
`
`a defendant satisfies all three predicates before granting a motion for compassionate release, it may
`
`deny compassionate release if a defendant fails to satisfy any of these grounds.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`James C. Mahan
`U.S. District Judge
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cr-00077-JCM-VCF Document 192 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`For compassionate release motions filed by the defendant, as opposed to the BOP, district
`
`courts may consider “any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a defendant may
`
`raise.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2021). These reasons may include—
`
`but are not limited to—terminal illnesses and other medical conditions “that substantially diminish
`
`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;” or the defendant’s advanced age. USSG §
`
`1B1.13.1
`
`The court need not “provide a lengthy explanation” for its decision on compassionate
`
`release so long as “context and the record reflect that [it] considered the defendant’s substantive
`
`arguments and offered a reasoned basis” for its decision. Wright, 46 F.4th, at 950 (citations
`
`omitted). Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny compassionate release is within the district
`
`court’s discretion. United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).
`
`III. Discussion
`
`Goodall argues that he should be compassionately released due to his underlying medical
`
`conditions, the BOP’s alleged inability to safeguard its inmates from infection by the Omicron
`
`variant of the COVID-19 virus, and the purported unconstitutionality of his conviction under
`
`section 924(c). The court does not decide whether there is an extraordinary and compelling reason
`
`to grant Goodall’s request for compassionate release because it denies his request under the factors
`
`listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wright, 46 F.4th at 947 (holding that a district court may deny a
`
`request for compassionate release without conducting a sequential, “step-by-step analysis” under
`
`section 3582(c)(1)(A)).
`
`Section 3553(a) factors include: “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
`
`history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed; the kinds of
`
`sentences available; the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established in the Guidelines;
`
`any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission; the need to avoid
`
`unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found
`
`
`1 Because USSG § 1B1.13 has not yet been updated to reflect the First Step Act’s amendment of
`18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), its policy statement is currently only “informative,” rather than
`binding, on district courts. Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802.
`
`James C. Mahan
`U.S. District Judge
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cr-00077-JCM-VCF Document 192 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`guilty of similar conduct; and the need to provide restitution to any victims.” United States v.
`
`Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)–(7)).
`
`Goodall admitted to the facts supporting his convictions. Not only did Goodall rob several
`
`stores with his codefendants, but he also split off from the group and robbed several more stores
`
`on his own. (ECF No. 63, at 6–14). During the group and solo robberies, Goodall repeatedly held
`
`store employees at gunpoint and threatened their lives. (Id.).
`
`These robberies are also not the only criminal convictions under Goodall’s belt. Prior to
`
`his sentence by this court, Goodall had multiple convictions and arrests, many of which involved
`
`violence. Furthermore, since beginning his term of incarceration, Goodall has not shown evidence
`
`of rehabilitation. Goodall has faced multiple disciplinary hearings for poor conduct, including
`
`threatening a BOP staff member and refusing a work assignment. (ECF No. 185, at 5).
`
`Considering all of the above, the first two factors under section 3553(a) do not warrant a
`
`grant of compassionate release. Not only was Goodall’s underlying offense undeniably serious,
`
`he appears to pose a danger to the public and has not shown evidence of rehabilitation. Granting
`
`Goodall’s motion for compassionate release would not serve the purposes of sentencing. Dean v.
`
`United States, 581 U.S. 62, 67 (2017) (explaining that the second sentencing factor considers
`
`whether a given sentence serves the purposes of sentencing: “just punishment, deterrence,
`
`protection of the public, and rehabilitation”).
`
`The remaining pertinent section 3553(a) factors require the court to consider “the kinds of
`
`sentences available,” “the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established,” “any pertinent
`
`policy statement” issued by the Sentencing Commission, and “the need to avoid unwarranted
`
`sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been guilty of similar
`
`conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3)–(6). These factors weigh against a grant of compassionate
`
`release.
`
`This court sentenced Goodall to 84 months for two counts of Hobbs Act robbery followed
`
`by a consecutive sentence of another 84 months for his section 924(c) conviction. (ECF No. 151).
`
`The guideline range for Goodall on his Hobbs Act counts, based on his criminal history and the
`
`total offense level, is 84 to 105 months. A conviction under section 924(c) carries a mandatory
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`James C. Mahan
`U.S. District Judge
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cr-00077-JCM-VCF Document 192 Filed 11/03/23 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`minimum of 84 months, to be served consecutive to any other sentence imposed by the court. 18
`
`U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(D).
`
`Goodall’s sentence is thus already at the low end of the guidelines range and the statutory
`
`minimum. His sentence is also significantly below the 240 months agreed upon by the parties in
`
`the plea agreement. (ECF No. 63, at 20). To grant Goodall compassionate release now, when he
`
`is still years away from completing his term of incarceration, would not serve the goals of
`
`sentencing.
`
`
`
`Finally, to the extent that Goodall argues he should be allowed to serve the remainder of
`
`his sentence on home confinement, the court reminds him that it lacks the jurisdiction to enter such
`
`an order. Although the compassionate release statute “allows a court to reduce a defendant’s term
`
`of imprisonment,” whether to allow a defendant to serve his term of incarceration on home
`
`confinement is “a matter committed to the discretion” of the BOP, not the court. Wright, 46 F.4th
`
`at 951.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Goodall’s motion for
`
`compassionate release (ECF No. 180) be DENIED.
`
`DATED November 3, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`James C. Mahan
`U.S. District Judge
`
`- 5 -
`
`