Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cr-00035/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cr-00035-20/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Holger Eklund
Defendant
Louis Holger
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LOUIS HOLGER EKLUND, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE 

Before the Court at Docket 674 is Defendant Louis Holger Eklund’s Motion for 

Compassionate Release. Mr. Eklund1 then submitted an Amended Motion for 

Compassionate Release at Docket 681. The Government filed a response in 

opposition at Docket 682. The U.S. Probation Office for the District of Alaska filed a 

sealed Compassionate Release Investigation Report at Docket 686, in which it 

recommended that the motion be denied. 

On November 12, 2021, this Court sentenced Mr. Eklund to 84 months of 

incarceration after he was found guilty on two counts of Cyberstalking.2 Mr. Eklund 

is currently in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody and incarcerated at FCI Pekin; his 

projected release date is April 23, 2024.3 Mr. Eklund seeks an order reducing his 

1 The Court recognizes Mr. Eklund’s preference to use his first and middle names, but for 

consistency in the Court’s proceedings and rulings, the Court will continue to refer to him as Mr. 

Eklund. See Docket 681 at 2 n.1. 

2 Docket 618 (Judgment). 

3 Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator (available at www.bop.gov/inmateloc/) (last accessed 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 7
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund

Order re Motion for Compassionate Release 

Page 2 of 7 

sentence to time served.4 For the reasons below, the Court denies Mr. Eklund’s 

motion. 

I. Applicable law 

The First Step Act of 2018, enacted on December 21, 2018, amended 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow federal inmates to move the district court for a 

sentence reduction after exhausting their administrative rights.5 If an inmate has 

exhausted his administrative rights, a district court must consider the motion on the 

merits. On the merits, in order to reduce a sentence, a court must find that 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction and that the 

applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a sentence reduction.6 

Although a district court must make both findings “before it grants compassionate 

release, a district court that properly denies compassionate release need not 

evaluate each step.”7

Following a November 1, 2023, amendment to the Sentencing Commission’s 

policy statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, “Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),” that policy statement now applies to both BOP-filed and 

February 12, 2024). 

4 Docket 681 at 10. 

5 First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Prior to this amendment, only 

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons could bring a motion to reduce an inmate’s sentence. 

6 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 

7 United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original) (disagreeing with 

the defendant that a district court must make an explicit “extraordinary and compelling” finding 

before denying a motion based on the § 3553(a) factors). 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund

Order re Motion for Compassionate Release 

Page 3 of 7 

defendant-filed compassionate release motions.8 “Congress has only placed two 

limitations directly on extraordinary and compelling reasons: the requirement that 

district courts are bound by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement and the 

requirement that ‘rehabilitation alone’ is not extraordinary and compelling.”9 The 

Court is thus bound by the policy statement when considering any compassionate 

release motion.10

II. Exhaustion of administrative rights 

An inmate has exhausted his administrative rights if the warden of the inmate’s 

facility has denied the inmate’s request for compassionate release or if 30 days have 

lapsed from the warden’s receipt of the request for compassionate release.11 Mr. 

Eklund submitted a request for compassionate release to the warden which was 

8 See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (“Upon motion of the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons or the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court 

may reduce a term of imprisonment . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. supplement to app. C, amend. 

814 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (changing § 1B1.13(a) language to include defendant-filed 

motions and noting that this November 1, 2023, amendment made the policy statement applicable 

to defendant-filed motions). 

9 United States v. Roper, 72 F.4th 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2023) (alteration omitted) (quoting United 

States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022)). 

10 This is in contrast to previous Ninth Circuit case law, which held that while the policy statement at 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 “may inform a district court’s discretion,” it was not binding on a district court 

considering a defendant-filed compassionate release motion. This was because the § 1B1.13 

policy statement at that time applied only to BOP-filed compassionate release motions. United 

States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Chen, 48 F.4th at 1095 (noting that, 

in Aruda, the Ninth Circuit “determined that the Sentencing Commission’s [then] current policy 

statement, which [was] applicable to motions filed by the BOP Director, [did] not also apply to 

defendant-filed motions for compassionate release, and thus, there [was] no applicable policy 

statement binding the district court’s consideration of extraordinary and compelling reasons” in a 

case where the defendant filed a compassionate release motion). 

11 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund

Order re Motion for Compassionate Release 

Page 4 of 7 

received on September 6, 2023.12 It appears that the warden did not respond to the 

request.13 The government does not dispute that Mr. Eklund has exhausted his 

administrative rights.14 Therefore, the Court will consider the motion on its merits.

III. Extraordinary and compelling reasons 

Mr. Eklund, who is currently 44 years old, submits that extraordinary and 

compelling grounds exist for a reduction in sentence because his confinement 

conditions have been particularly punitive and harsh, and his rehabilitation and reentry would be promoted if he were released to a Residential Reentry Center.15 Mr. 

Eklund explains that “he was subject to nearly perpetual lockdown” during the 

COVID-19 pandemic, held in quarantine when he was transferred to Nevada and 

Missouri, isolated with no access to the outdoors at another facility, and locked in a 

cell for two weeks at one other prison.16 He asserts that he “endured medical 

shortages, staff shortages, food shortages, & [a] general inability to manage the 

number of prisoners in the BOP care.”17 In addition, Mr. Eklund maintains that he 

“has shown great interest in making efforts toward rehabilitation” by working with a 

12 Docket 182-1. 

13 Mr. Eklund’s amended motion for compassionate release was filed on December 13, 2023—

more than 30 days after the warden received the request. Docket 681. 

14 See generally Docket 682. 

15 Docket 681 at 4-9. 

16 Docket 681 at 4-5. 

17 Docket 681 at 6. 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund

Order re Motion for Compassionate Release 

Page 5 of 7 

mental health provider and participating in educational programs.18 Mr. Eklund 

contends that, if released from BOP custody now and ordered to enter a residential 

reentry program or home confinement, he would be better placed to achieve his 

rehabilitative goals and receive counseling, job training, and skill development, 

among other things.19

In response, the Government asserts that Mr. Eklund’s unsworn statements 

“are not credible evidence regarding his conditions of confinement,” and that even if 

true, the conditions “are not so severe as to warrant a reduction in sentence.”20 The 

Government further contends that even if more social services would be available 

outside of BOP custody, Mr. Eklund cites no authority for why that constitutes an 

extraordinary or compelling reason for a reduction in sentence. Finally, the 

Government points out that Mr. Eklund has had multiple disciplinary infractions while 

incarcerated, and that “his refusal to return to general population belies his 

complaints regarding pandemic-related lockdowns.”21

In the Compassionate Release Investigation Report, the Probation Officer 

noted that Mr. Eklund was not currently eligible for placement in a residential reentry 

18 Docket 681 at 7. 

19 Docket 681 at 8-9. 

20 Docket 682 at 6. 

21 Docket 682 at 7. 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund

Order re Motion for Compassionate Release 

Page 6 of 7 

program due to an outstanding warrant from Washington.22 However, Mr. Eklund 

then filed a notice that the outstanding warrant had recently been quashed.23 

The Court finds that Mr. Eklund has not established extraordinary and 

compelling reasons that would justify a reduction in sentence. Mr. Eklund’s 

conditions of confinement—though more severe than normal—and his potential for 

better rehabilitation outside of incarceration in his remaining two months in custody 

do not warrant a reduction in sentence. Moreover, it is the Court’s understanding 

that Mr. Eklund may now be eligible for placement in a residential reentry program by 

BOP given that a prior warrant for his arrest—which made him ineligible for the 

program—has been quashed.24 However, his placement in such a program is 

determined by the BOP, not by this Court, so long as he is in BOP custody. 

IV. Section 3553(a) factors 

Because Mr. Eklund has not made a threshold showing of extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for a reduction in sentence, the Court need not determine 

whether the § 3553(a) factors weigh in his favor.25

22 Docket 686 at 3 (sealed) (noting that the warrant was from Washington Case No. 01-1-00693-6, 

for felony Escape in the First Degree). 

23 Docket 687. 

24 See Docket 686 at 3 (sealed); Docket 687; Docket 687-1. 

25 “Although a district court must perform [the § 3582(c)(1)(A)] sequential inquiry before it grants 

compassionate release, a district court that properly denies compassionate release need not 

evaluate each step.” Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (emphases in original) (disagreeing with the defendant 

that a district court must make an explicit “extraordinary and compelling” finding before denying a 

motion based on the § 3553(a) factors). 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, USA v. Eklund

Order re Motion for Compassionate Release 

Page 7 of 7 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for 

Compassionate Release at Docket 674 and Defendant’s Amended Motion for 

Compassionate Release at Docket 681 are each DENIED. 

DATED this 14th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 694 Filed 02/14/24 Page 7 of 7