1 – OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 3:14-cr-00393-HZ

Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

v.

CRAIG ALAN OSTRANDER,

Defendant.

Leah K. Bolstad

United States Attorney’s Office

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Devon D. Huseby

Office of the Public Defender

15 Newtown St.

Medford, OR 97501

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 8
2 – OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)(Compassionate Release), ECF 70. For the reasons that follow, 

the Court denies Defendant’s Motion. 

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2015, Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On June 13, 2016, the Court sentenced 

Defendant to a 190-month term of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. 

On September 22, 2020 Defendant filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) in which he alleged he suffers from hypertension, type II diabetes, 

hyperlipidemia, a damaged liver, inflammatory gut issues, and obesity, and asserted that his 

medical conditions, combined with the pandemic provided extraordinary and compelling reasons 

to reduce his sentence. On November 20, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion on the 

basis that Defendant remained a danger to the community.

On July 28, 2023, Defendant filed a second Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Court took Defendant’s Motion under advisement on August 27, 

2023.

STANDARDS

A federal district court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has 

been imposed[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824–25 

(2010). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), Congress provided an exception, commonly known as 

compassionate release, to reduce a defendant's sentence for “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons.” Under the original statute, only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) could 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 8
3 – OPINION & ORDER

file a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction on a defendant's behalf. United States v. 

Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). But with the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, 

Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5191 (2018), Congress amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a 

defendant, after first requesting that the BOP move for a reduction on his or her behalf, to 

directly move the district court for a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

[T]he 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 . . . 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.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

The United States Sentencing Commission's policy statement identifies categories of 

extraordinary and compelling reasons, including the defendant's age, medical condition, and 

“family circumstances.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 app. n.1(A)-(C). The Sentencing Commission's 

policy statement, however, only applies to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by the BOP Director on 

behalf of a defendant. Aruda, 993 F.3d at 801. On a defendant's direct motion for compassionate 

release, the policy factors “may inform a district court's discretion . . ., but they are not binding.” 

Id. at 802 (citation omitted). 

The defendant seeking a reduction of his sentence bears the burden to establish that the 

defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies and that extraordinary and compelling 

reasons exist to warrant a reduction of his or her sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 8
4 – OPINION & ORDER

States v. Greenhut, 2:18-CR-00048-CAS-1, 2020 WL 509385, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020)

(holding that a defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to sentencing reduction 

and citing United States v. Sprague, 135 F.3d 1301, 1306–07 (9th Cir. 1998)).

DISCUSSION

Defendant requested compassionate release from the warden more than 30 days before he 

filed his most recent Motion and received no response. Def.’s Mot. at 5, ECF 70. Accordingly, 

Defendant's Motion is ripe for review. The Government does not dispute that Defendant has 

exhausted his administrative remedies, but contends Defendant remains a danger to the 

community and, therefore, his Motion should be denied.

Defendant asserts that his health has seriously deteriorated since his previous Motion to 

Reduce Sentence and his health condition now constitutes an extraordinary and compelling 

reason for early release1because he is unable to provide himself with self care. Specifically, on 

February 28, 2022, he suffered a “massive stroke.” Plaintiff alleges that since his stroke, he 

“struggles to walk, cannot communicate his needs and is unable to effectively care for himself or 

independently carry out activities of daily living.” Def.’s Mot. at 1. Defendant alleges that as a 

result of his stroke he had “partial paralysis of the right-side of his body as well as the 

development of verbal aphasia2and apraxia.” Id. at 3. Defendant notes that his condition has 

improved “slightly” in the months since his stroke, but asserts he still struggles to walk and to 

1 At the time of his Motion Defendant had served 45 percent of his sentence with a projected 

release date of April 5, 2029.

2 Verbal aphasia is a disorder that “impairs the expression and understanding of language as well 

as reading and writing.” Apraxia is the “loss of ability to execute or carry out skilled 

movement...despite having the physical ability and desire to perform them.” Def.’s Mot. at 4 

n.1-2.

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 8
5 – OPINION & ORDER

communicate. In March 2023, medical staff3noted Defendant was having “some noncompliance 

with speech therapy” and was “struggling to say more than around four words,” Def.’s Mot., 

Ex. A at 17. Staff also described a “[s]elf care deficit related to inability to perform AOL's 

independently due to stroke deficits. Primarily requires help ambulating long distances and 

housekeeping activities, activities requiring use of two hands.” Id. Defendant, however, had 

“made improvements” in his ability to “feed himself, ambulate with walker, dress and shower 

himself with minimal to no assist from staff.” Id. 

Defendant also asserts the § 3553(a) factors warrant a reduction in his sentence because 

his current conviction is for a non-violent drug offense; further incarceration will not result in 

any rehabilitative benefits because he is “now unable to program”; and although he is classified 

as a “career criminal” and “has had many disciplinary violations in custody, his physical and 

mental condition has drastically deteriorated,” and he “is no longer in the condition he was in 

when most of these offenses were committed and therefore no longer presents unreasonable risk 

to the community.” Def.’s Mot. at 9. In particular, Defendant “cannot talk, use his right arm, or 

walk without assistance. He simply will be unable to pose a serious risk to the community.” Id. 

The government does not dispute that Defendant suffered a stroke that affected his health, 

but asserts that despite his health issues Defendant continues to be noncompliant and willing to 

engage in disagreements. For example, on October 18, 2022, eight months after his stroke, 

Defendant was sanctioned for abusing the prison telephone system, disallowed 27 days of goodconduct time, and barred from further telephone use for 90 days. In addition, in February 2023 

Defendant got into a verbal and physical altercation with another inmate and was sanctioned for 

3 Defendant is currently housed at the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, a dedicated medical 

facility which affords inmates greater access to specialized care.

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 5 of 8
6 – OPINION & ORDER

assault without serious injury, lost an additional 27 days of good-conduct time, lost email 

privileges for four months, and received a fine. 

Before modifying an imposed term of imprisonment, a Court must consider the 

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors include the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need for 

the sentence imposed “(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the 

law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant; and (D) to provide the 

defendant with needed educational and vocational training, medical care, and other correctional 

treatment in the most effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). A district court's “overarching 

statutory charge . . . is to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to reflect 

the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment; to 

afford adequate deterrence; and to protect the public.” United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon, 14 

F.4th 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2021)(internal quotation and citation omitted).

Although he is only 45 years old, Defendant has a 33-year criminal record. He has been 

arrested more than a dozen times and has been convicted of multiple crimes involving violence 

and firearms. For example, in 2002, he struck a woman in the face during an argument at a 

tavern. In 2004, he assaulted a victim with a firearm. The following year he was convicted of 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Most recently, Defendant was 

in possession of two loaded firearms when he was arrested in connection with his current 

conviction. In addition. Defendant has a poor history on probation. As the government noted in 

its Response to Defendant’s first Motion to Reduce Sentence: 

In 1996, [Defendant] violated the terms of his probation. When the court extended 

his probation, he again violated, and had his probation revoked. In 2001, he once 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 6 of 8
7 – OPINION & ORDER

again had his probation revoked. In 2004, he violated the terms of a domestic 

violence protection order. In 2012 and 2013, he had his supervised release revoked. 

Additionally, defendant has been released on bail, only to fail to appear in court, [] 

four times. On at least two of those occasions, he was found to have committed 

additional crimes the very same day he failed to appear in court. 

Gov’t Resp., ECF 61, at 4 (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, Defendant’s inmate 

disciplinary record details that he has committed 39 violations since 2006, including assault, 

possession of a deadly weapon, destroying property, threatening bodily harm to staff and other 

inmates, possessing syringes, insubordination, using cannabis, possessing another inmate’s urine 

while on the way to a drug test, using methamphetamine, interfering with staff, possession of 

alcohol, using restricted equipment, and fighting. Gov’t Att. A, ECF 64. The government notes 

that 11 of these violations have occurred during his current sentence, which he began serving in 

2016. 

As the government points out, it does not require any particular physical strength to 

purchase or distribute drugs, to acquire a firearm, or to fail to comply with terms of supervision. 

Moreover, Defendant has served less than half of his sentence and he received a sentence below 

the guidelines. Under similar circumstances courts have denied motions for compassionate 

release. See, e.g., United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1008–09 (6th Cir. 2020)(concluding the 

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant compassionate release when the 

defendant had served 10 years of 25-year sentence and suffered from disorder that caused strokes 

and partial paralysis because the defendant had not served half his sentence, the original sentence 

included a downward variance, he committed additional offenses while suffering from the same 

condition, and he had a record of drug and weapons offenses).

In summary, the nature and circumstances of Defendant's underlying offense were

significant. He has almost six years remaining on his 190-month sentence. The sentence imposed 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 7 of 8
8 – OPINION & ORDER

by this Court reflects the seriousness of the offenses, affords adequate deterrence, and protects 

the public from further crimes by Defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Finally, Defendant has 

not shown that he no longer poses a danger to the community. The Court, therefore, concludes 

that Defendant has not carried his burden to show that a reduction of his sentence would be 

consistent with the federal sentencing factors. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion 

to Reduce Sentence. 

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), ECF 70. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________________.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

October 23, 2023

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 77 Filed 10/23/23 Page 8 of 8