IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

ISRAEL BANUELOS, 

 Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 1:18-cr-58 

Judge Susan J. Dlott 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE 

RELEASE 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release (Doc. 

135) and the Motion for Order Reducing Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) 

Supplementing Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release (Doc. 138). The United States 

opposes Defendant’s motions. (Doc. 143). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motions 

will be DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendant Israel Banuelos pled guilty, on April 25, 2019, to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 

841 and 846. (Docs. 105, 106.) Banuelos (a.k.a. “Luis Rodriguez Lugo”) met two co-defendants 

at a Starbucks parking lot and retrieved from a co-defendant’s rented vehicle a bag containing 

approximately 1,000 grams of cocaine. (Doc. 105 at PageID 387–88.) After his attempt to flee 

failed, police arrested Banuelos without incident. (Id. at PageID 388.) At the time of the instant 

offense, Banuelos was on supervised release following a 2008 conviction in the Northern District 

of Oklahoma for possessing with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii). See United States v. Banuelos, Case 1:19-

cr-36 (transferring jurisdiction of supervision to the Southern District of Ohio). Pursuant to the 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 734
2 

terms of his plea agreement, the Court sentenced him to 60 months in prison to run concurrently 

with the sentence imposed for his supervised release violation followed by four years of 

supervised release and forfeiture of over $150,000 in drug proceeds. (Doc. 132.) 

Banuelos has been incarcerated since his arrest on April 6, 2018. He is currently housed 

at FMC Lexington, a federal medical center operated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). His 

projected release date is July 10, 2022. In addition, he has an Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”) detainer due to his immigration status. 

Banuelos now moves for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

(Docs. 135, 138.) Banuelos has undergone a kidney transplant which requires his continued use 

of immunosuppressant medications, and he suffers from prediabetes, hypertension and a seizure 

disorder which make him unusually susceptible to severe illness if he were to contract COVID19 while incarcerated. (Doc. 135-1 at PageID 650–54.) He requests that his sentence be reduced 

to time served. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The Court lacks authority to resentence a defendant, except as permitted by statute. 

United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 748–49 (6th Cir. 2008). “The compassionate release 

provisions were first included in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 . . . to be a ‘safety valve’ to 

reduce a sentence in the ‘unusual case in which the defendant’s circumstances are so changed, 

such as by terminal illness, that it would be inequitable to continue the confinement of the 

prisoner.’” United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting S. Rep. 

98-225, at 121 (1983)). The 1984 provisions empowered only the BOP Director to file a motion 

for compassionate release, “[y]et the Director seldom wielded this significant power.” United 

States v. Jones, ___ F.3d ___, 2020 WL 6817488, *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020). For instance, the 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 735
3 

BOP approved only 6% of 5,400 compassionate release applications received between 2013 and 

2017. Id. (referring to Christie Thompson, Frail, Old and Dying, but Their Only Way Out of 

Prison Is a Coffin, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 7, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/prisonscompassionate-release-.html (citing data provided by the BOP)). 

Frustrated that the Director acted so infrequently, Congress passed the First Step Act of 

2018. “Section 603(b) of the First Step Act—titled ‘Increasing the Use and Transparency of 

Compassionate Release’—ousted the BOP from its preclusive gatekeeper position and amended 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” Id. at ___, 2020 WL 6817488, at *4; See First Step Act of 2018, 

Pub. L. 115-391, Title VI, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i): 

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been 

imposed except that-- 

(1) in any case-- 

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 

or 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 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 reduction . . 

. and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 

Thus, under the current provisions, an incarcerated person can file for compassionate 

release after either exhausting the BOP’s administrative process or thirty days after the warden 

received the compassionate release request, whichever is earlier. Id. Once this administrative 

process has occurred, the Court employs a three step evaluation to determine: (1) whether 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” the requested sentence reduction; (2) whether 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 736
4 

the reduction is consistent with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements; and (3) 

whether, considering the applicable section 3553(a) factors,1 the reduction is warranted under the 

particular circumstances of the case. Jones, ___ F.3d at ___, 2020 WL 6817488, at *6 (footnote 

added); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). “In cases where incarcerated persons file motions for 

compassionate release, federal judges may skip step two of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry and have 

full discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’ without consulting the policy statement 

[USSG] § 1B1.13.” Jones, ___ F.3d at ___, 2020 WL 6817488, at *9 (concluding that § 1B1.13 

applies only where the BOP Director files the compassionate release motion). A court’s decision 

to grant compassionate release is discretionary. Id. at *5. A person seeking sentence reduction 

bears the burden of proving entitlement to compassionate release. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d. at 

426; United States v. Hill, No. 5:14CR337, 2020 WL 5104477, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2020). 

III. ANALYSIS 

In the case at bar, Banuelos exhausted the required administrative remedies by petitioning 

the warden for compassionate release at least thirty days prior to filing his motion. (Doc. 138-1 

at PageID 713.) Therefore, his motion is ripe for consideration on the merits. See United States 

v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020). 

A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reason 

In this case, Banuelos suffers from several medical conditions identified by the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) as among those that increase or may increase an 

individual’s risk of severe illness from COVID-19. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

1

 Section 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the defendant’s history and 

characteristics; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, provide just 

punishment, and promote respect for the law; (3) the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; 

(4) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care or other 

treatment; (5) the kinds of sentences available; (6) the sentencing guideline range; (7) the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records guilty of similar conduct; and (8) the need to provide 

restitution to victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 737
5 

PREVENTION, CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19), People With Certain Medical Conditions, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medicalconditions.html (last visited December 10, 2020). Of particular concern, Banuelos continues to 

take immunosuppressive medications following his kidney transplant. (Presentence 

Investigation Report (“PSR”) at ¶ 65.) 

In addition, as of December 10, 2020, the Bureau of Prisons reported the following data 

from FMC Lexington: 115 inmates and 13 staff members with positive COVID-19 tests, nine 

inmate COVID-19 deaths, and 206 inmates and 28 staff members recovered from COVID-19. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, COVID-19 Coronavirus, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last accessed 

December 10, 2020). In a correctional facility, it is difficult to maintain social distance and 

engage in other COVID-19 mitigation efforts as inmates must share communal living spaces and 

materials required for disinfection are often limited or unavailable. 

Numerous courts have found extraordinary and compelling reasons under similar 

circumstances. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have found extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for compassionate release when an inmate shows both a particularized 

susceptibility to the disease and a particularized risk of contracting the disease at his prison 

facility.” United States v. Provost, No. 3:18-cr-42, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 4274570, at 

*4 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (granting motion for 

compassionate release). For instance, in July, this Court granted compassionate release to an 

inmate with diabetes and high blood pressure where the correctional facility failed to implement 

adequate sanitation measures, did not require masks, and fired the only onsite doctor. United 

States v. Crawford, No. 2:18-cr-00075-3, 2020 WL 3869480, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2020). 

See also United States v. Smith, No. 4:15-cr-019, 2020 WL 3317222, at *4–5 (N.D. Ohio June 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 738
6 

18, 2020) (finding defendant’s age, history of heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes 

constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for reduction but denying motion on other 

grounds); United States v. Jackson, No. 5:02-cr-30020, 2020 WL 2735724, at *3 (W.D. Va. May 

26, 2020) (COVID-19 pandemic and defendant’s type two diabetes, asthma, sleep apnea, and 

obesity constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for sentence reduction); United 

States v. Zukerman, 451 F. Supp. 3d 329, 335 (S.D. N.Y. April 3, 2020) (defendant’s age, 

diabetes, hypertension, and obesity satisfied the extraordinary and compelling reason 

requirement); United States v. Perez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 288, 293–94 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2020) 

(defendant’s recent surgeries and pain and vision complications, along with his inability to care 

for himself in prison where social distancing in his small cell was impossible, constituted 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release). 

Banuelos’ serious health conditions, including his immunosuppressed state due to posttransplant immunosuppressant use, place him at increased risk of serious illness from COVID19. Combined with the current outbreak of active COVID-19 cases at his correctional facility, 

the Court concludes that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists for his compassionate 

release. 

B. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors 

The Court next must consider the section 3553(a) factors. United States v. Jones, ___ 

F.3d ___, 2020 WL 6817488, *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020). Among the factors to be considered 

are the nature and characteristics of the Defendant’s offense; the Defendant’s criminal history; 

the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct; the need 

to protect the public; the Sentencing Guidelines range; and the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 739
7 

In the case at bar, the nature and circumstances of this offense are serious. Drug 

Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) Agents observed Banuelos meet his co-defendants and 

retrieve a bag from his co-defendants’ rental car. (PSR ¶ 26.) When Banuelos observed the 

Agents following him, he attempted to flee in his car. (PSR ¶ 27.) After determining that he 

could not escape by automobile, Banuelos abandoned his vehicle and attempted to flee on foot. 

(Id.) Between Banuelos and his co-defendants, DEA agents recovered approximately three 

kilograms of cocaine and more than $150,000 in duct-taped bundles of United States currency as 

well as packaging materials for the drugs and money. (PSR ¶¶ 29–30.) As part of his plea 

agreement, the parties agreed that Banuelos is personally accountable for approximately one 

kilogram of cocaine. (PSR ¶ 30.) 

This is not Banuelos’ first federal narcotics conviction. In 2008, a grand jury in the 

Northern District of Oklahoma indicted Banuelos and a different set of co-defendants with 

hauling methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana into the Northern District of Oklahoma via a 

specially modified truck and then repackaging and storing the controlled substances at stash 

houses prior to distribution to street level dealers. United States v. Banuelos, No. 08-cr-55-003-

TCK (N.D. Ok. 2008). In that case, Banuelos ultimately pled guilty to possessing with intent to 

distribute 100 kilograms of more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(B)(vii) and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of 

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. (Case No. 1:19-cr-36, Doc. 2 at PageID 

14–15.) 

Banuelos was incarcerated on the Northern District of Oklahoma conviction from 2008 to 

2015. (PSR ¶ 77.) He was deported to Mexico in 2015. (PSR ¶ 76.) He reentered the United 

States in 2017 without reporting his reentry to the United States Probation Office as required, 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 740
8 

adopted the name “Luis Rodriguez Lugo,” and worked as a mason in Tulsa, Oklahoma before 

committing the instant offense. (PSR ¶ 76.) He was still on supervised release for his prior 

federal drug conviction when he committed the instant offense. 

As for the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the Defendant’s 

conduct and to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the statutory term of imprisonment here 

is not less than five nor more than 40 years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). Consistent with his 

guideline sentencing range, the Court sentenced Banuelos to the statutory minimum term of five 

years imprisonment. (Doc. 132.) 

Finally, the Court struggles with balancing Banuelos’ immunocompromised state and the 

need to protect the public from his potential future crimes. Banuelos’ health concerns are 

significant. It must be very difficult to be incarcerated during a pandemic while also taking 

medications that suppress one’s immune system. However, if this Court grants his motion for 

compassionate release, Banuelos will then be subject to an ICE detainer. The Court notes that 

the existence of an ICE detainer alone does not require compassionate release denial.2

 See, e.g., 

United States v. Lopez, No. 97-01117 ACK-2, 2020 WL 6298061 (D. Haw. Oct. 27, 2020) and 

United States v. Villalobos-Gonzalez, No. CR15-0202-JCC, 2020 WL 4569697 (W.D. Wash. 

Aug. 7, 2020). If Banuelos’ motion is granted here, though, he will be released from BOP 

custody to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) custody and then be deported. Banuelos 

offers no evidence that his exposure risk in DHS custody or during deportation is lower than his 

exposure risk at a BOP medical facility. 

In addition, serious concerns remain regarding the need to protect the public from the 

Defendant’s potential future crimes. Unlike the defendants in the cases upon which Banuelos 

2

 The Court commends Defendant’s counsel for her thorough briefing on this issue. (Doc. 145 at PageID 728–731.) 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 741
9 

relies, he remains a danger to the community. While the Court in no way minimizes his very real 

health concerns, his health has not impacted his criminal abilities. Banuelos underwent a kidney 

transplant in early 2005. (PSR at ¶ 64.) Yet, he committed the prior federal offense in 2008, was 

incarcerated from 2008 through his deportation in 2015, reentered the United States in 2017, and 

committed this crime in 2018. He is still only 37 years old. If he remains healthy through the 

deportation process, there is no impediment to him again reentering the United States to again 

engage in a narcotics conspiracy. In fact, his mother and four of his five siblings reside in 

Oklahoma, and at the time of the presentence investigation, his father planned to join them. 

(PSR at ¶ 57–58.) His teenaged son, with whom Banuelos hopes to build a relationship once he 

is released, also lives in Oklahoma. (PSR at ¶ 60.) Thus, even if he is released early and safely 

deported, Banuelos has significant incentive to once again violate the law. Therefore, in this 

case, the section 3553(a) factors weigh against compassionate release. 

IV. CONCLUSION

After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court concludes that a 

reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is not warranted in this case. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release (Doc. 135) and Motion for Order 

Reducing Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) Supplementing Defendant’s Motion 

for Compassionate Release (Doc. 138) are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 S/Susan J. Dlott_________________ 

 Judge Susan J. Dlott 

 United States District Court 

Case: 1:18-cr-00058-SJD Doc #: 146 Filed: 12/21/20 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 742