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.

Amy Potter

United States Attorney’s Office

405 E. 8th Avenue, Suite 2400

Eugene, OR 97401

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alison Clark

Office of the Public Defender

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 66 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 6
2 – OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Defendant moves the Court to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

The Government opposes Defendant’s motion. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. 

BACKGROUND

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

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pet. & Order Entering Guilty Plea, ECF 

37. On June 13, 2016, the Court sentenced Defendant to a 190-month term of imprisonment and 

a five-year term of supervised release. J. & Commitment, ECF 49. At the time of filing, 

Defendant had served approximately 30% of the sentence imposed and his projected release date 

was January 14, 2029. Def. Mot. 3, ECF 56; Gov’t Resp. 1, ECF 61. Defendant is currently 

incarcerated at USP Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania.

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). With the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5191 

(2018), Congress authorized the district court to modify a defendant’s sentence on a motion for 

compassionate release by either the defendant or the Bureau of Prisons:

[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.

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 66 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 6
3 – OPINION & ORDER

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

The policy statement issued by the United States Sentencing Commission identifies four 

categories of extraordinary and compelling reasons: (A) the medical condition of the defendant; 

(B) the age of the defendant; (C) family circumstances, including “death or incapacitation of the 

caregiver of the defendant’s minor child”; and (D) other reasons, as determined by the Director 

of the Bureau of Prisons, that amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason “other than, or 

in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13

app. n.1(A)-(D). 

The policy statement also requires the court to determine whether the circumstances 

warrant a reduction (and, if so, the amount of reduction), after considering the factors set forth in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and whether the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other person or to 

the community. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(4).

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 

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 is 42 years old. He suffers from hypertension, type II diabetes, hyperlipidemia, 

a damaged liver, inflammatory gut issues, and obesity. Def. Ex. A, ECF 60. He argues that his

medical conditions, combined with the pandemic and particular vulnerability of prisoners, 

provide extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence. The government does not 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 66 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 6
4 – OPINION & ORDER

dispute that Defendant is afflicted with health conditions which put him at greater risk of serious 

illness and/or death were he to contract COVID-19, but argues that Defendant is not eligible for 

a reduction in sentence because he is a danger to the community.1

The factors considered by the court when deciding whether a defendant is a danger to the 

safety of any other person or to the community are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense (including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a 

federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, 

explosive, or destructive device); (2) the weight of the evidence; (3) the history and 

characteristics of the defendant (including, among other things, the defendant’s character, 

physical and mental condition, and family ties and whether at the time of the offense or arrest the 

defendant was on probation, parole, or other release); and (4) the nature and seriousness of the 

danger to any person or the community posed by the defendant’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

Defendant argues that he is not a danger to the community because his current conviction 

is for a non-violent drug offense and he has taken advantage of work opportunities and 

educational programming while incarcerated. Defendant also contends that “his most recent 

disciplinary reports show progress and a focus on rehabilitation.” Def. Mot. 14. The Court 

disagrees. 

Defendant has a significant criminal history spanning over two decades. He has been 

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

and firearms. 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 

1 The government agrees that Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies as required 

by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Gov’t Resp. 1. 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 66 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 6
5 – OPINION & ORDER

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 short, 

Defendant’s criminal history demonstrates that his release would present a danger to the 

community. 

Defendant contends that with carefully tailored restrictions he can be supervised safely in 

the community; however, his previous conduct indicates otherwise. As the government notes: 

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 

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. 4 (internal citations omitted).”Thus, the Court has no confidence that supervision 

will be successful now.” United States v. Dean, No. 3:18-CR-00119-SI, 2020 WL 3073199, at *6 

(D. Or. June 10, 2020) (finding the defendant was a danger to the community where he had an 

extensive criminal history of possessing firearms and committed several offenses while under 

court ordered supervision). 

Finally, Defendant’s assertion that “his most recent disciplinary reports show progress 

and a focus on rehabilitation” is belied by the record. Def. Mot. 14. 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 only began 

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 66 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 6
6 – OPINION & ORDER

serving in 2016. Id. The Court finds that Defendant’s disciplinary record further establishes that 

his release would present a danger to the community. Accordingly, Defendant has not carried his 

burden of showing that he is eligible for compassionate release. 

CONCLUSION

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

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) [56] without prejudice and with leave to seek reconsideration if circumstances 

change.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________________.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

November 20, 2020

Case 3:14-cr-00393-HZ Document 66 Filed 11/20/20 Page 6 of 6