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 
2

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 
3

"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 COVID19 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 
4

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-withmedical-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. 
5

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