1 – OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL ARCILA,

Defendant.

No. 3:14-cr-00267-HZ-3

OPINION & ORDER

Leah K. Bolstad

United States Attorney’s Office

1000 SW Third Ave, Ste 600

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Plaintiff

Elizabeth Gillingham Daily

Office of the Federal Public Defender

101 SW Main St, Ste 1700

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 1 of 9
2 – OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: 

 Defendant Raul Arcila moves for a reduction of his sentence to 156 months for 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government 

opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion. 

BACKGROUND

 On November 6, 2015, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin 

resulting in death (count 1), conspiracy to distribute heroin, and possession with intent to 

distribute heroin. Verdict Form, ECF 205-1. The jury found that Defendant’s distribution 

resulted in the victim’s death and that the death was a foreseeable result of the conspiracy. Id. 

He was sentenced to 240 months on the first count. J. & Commitment, ECF 244. This was the 

mandatory minimum sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The Ninth Circuit affirmed 

Defendant’s conviction and the application of the 20-year mandatory minimum sentence. United 

States v. Arcila, 727 F. App’x. 279, 281 (9th Cir. 2018). Defendant is serving his sentence at 

USP Lompoc. He has a projected release date of February 22, 2031. Gov. Resp. 5, ECF 355. 

 Defendant previously moved for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A) on March 28, 2022. ECF 320. The Court denied the motion at a hearing on 

November 21, 2022. ECF 344. 

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-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 2 of 9
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 also 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: 

[T]he court, . . . 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). 

DISCUSSION

 It is undisputed that Defendant exhausted his administrative remedies. Gov. Resp. 6. But 

Defendant has not shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and reducing his sentence 

would not be consistent with the sentencing factors or the applicable policy statement. 

I. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons 

The Sentencing Guidelines were recently amended, with the amendments taking effect on 

November 1, 2023. The Ninth Circuit held that under the previous version of the Guidelines, the 

Sentencing Commission’s policy statement only applied to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by the 

BOP Director on behalf of a defendant. Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802. The Ninth Circuit based this 

conclusion on the text of the old policy statement, which was directed solely toward motions 

filed by BOP. Id. at 801. The new policy statement is directed toward motions filed by BOP or 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 3 of 9
4 – OPINION & ORDER

defendants. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a) (“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 

. . .”). The Sentencing Commission explained that the November 1, 2023, amendment “extends 

the applicability of the policy statement to defendant-filed motions.” U.S. Sentencing 

Commission, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (effective Nov. 1, 2023) at 7, 

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/official-textamendments/202305_Amendments.pdf. Thus, Aruda is no longer good law to the extent that it 

held that the policy statement is not binding on motions filed by defendants. A defendant must 

show extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce the sentence consistent with the policy 

statement. 

The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement identifies categories of extraordinary and 

compelling reasons to be considered individually and in the aggregate: the defendant’s medical 

conditions, age, family circumstances, and status as a victim of abuse. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)-

(4). The policy statement also contains a catchall provision for other circumstances that, alone or 

when combined with circumstances from the specified categories, are “similar in gravity.” Id.

§ 1B1.13(b)(5). Outside of narrow circumstances involving certain defendants who received an 

unusually long sentence, a change in the law “shall not be considered for purposes of 

determining whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists under this policy statement.” 

Id. § 1B1.13(c). It may, however, be considered to determine the extent of reduction if the 

district court finds other extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce the sentence. Id. 

The parties dispute the applicability of the Sentencing Commission’s amended policy 

statement to Defendant’s renewed motion. Defendant argues that the new policy statement does 

not apply because he filed the motion one day before the new Guidelines took effect. Def. 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 4 of 9
5 – OPINION & ORDER

Renewed Mot. 6 n.1, ECF 348. The Government counters that the law should be applied as it 

exists at the time of adjudication, not the time of filing. Gov. Resp. 13 n.5 (citing United States v. 

Espinoza-Morales, 621 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a)). The authorities 

the Government cites provide that a sentencing court should apply the Guidelines in effect at the 

time of sentencing, unless they have undergone a substantive change that would disadvantage the 

defendant, in which case the Guidelines in effect at the time the offense was committed should 

be used to avoid violating the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. Espinoza-Morales, 621 

F.3d at 1146; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a), (b)(1). 

The Court concludes that the new policy statement applies here. Defendant provides no 

authority for the proposition that the date he filed his motion determines which version of the 

Guidelines governs. Nor does he argue that applying the new policy statement would violate the 

Ex Post Facto Clause.1 Other district courts have held that the new policy statement governs 

compassionate release motions filed before the new Guidelines went into effect but adjudicated 

after November 1, 2023. E.g., United States v. Chavez, No. 18-CR-5436-GPC, 2024 WL 24065, 

at *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024); United States v. Cunningham, No. CR 12-60-GF-BMM, 2024 

WL 50908, at *2 (D. Mont. Jan. 4, 2024); United States v. Carrera Ramirez, No. 2:00-CR-105-3 

TS, 2024 WL 54429, at *3 (D. Utah Jan. 4, 2024). 

The Court further concludes that the result is the same under either version of the 

Guidelines. Defendant’s current motion relies on the arguments he made in his previous motion. 

1 Ninth Circuit caselaw suggests that application of the new policy statement would not violate 

the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2014)

(holding that application of amended Guideline governing motions for sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2) that restricted the district court’s discretion to lower a defendant’s sentence did not 

violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it did not increase the defendant’s punishment beyond 

what it would have been without the amendment).

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 5 of 9
6 – OPINION & ORDER

Def. Renewed Mot. 4-5. In that motion, Defendant argued that his 20-year mandatory minimum 

sentence was a trial penalty that was disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and 

created an unwarranted disparity with the sentences of his codefendants. Id. at 4; Def. Mot. 8-13, 

ECF 320. Defendant also relied on his rehabilitation, the conditions of confinement during the 

pandemic, his health conditions, and the withholding of First Step Act credits. Def. Mot. 12-23. 

The Court considered all of these factors and concluded that even taken together, they did not 

rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling. Def. Renewed Mot. Ex. A (hearing transcript). 

Defendant’s Renewed Motion also relies on a catchall, cumulative circumstances 

argument, which is permitted under both the old and new Guidelines. To the extent that the new 

Guidelines would not allow the Court to consider any changes in the law that might affect 

Defendant’s case, Defendant has not pointed to any such changes in the law in his Renewed 

Motion. The Court considered all of the factors Defendant raised in his prior motion and found 

they were not extraordinary and compelling. Nothing in the new Guidelines changes that result.

In his present motion, Defendant relies primarily on his continued rehabilitation over the 

year since his previous motion for compassionate release was denied. Def. Renewed Mot. 8-9. 

He points to evidence that he has taken many classes and completed various training programs. 

Id. Exs. B, C. He is now eligible for First Step Act credits, and was assessed as low risk at his 

most recent assessment, in June 2023. Id. Ex. D. Defendant also provides letters from his 

parents, who state that they would provide him with housing, moral support, and employment if 

he were released. Id. Ex. E. Finally, Defendant points to his relative youth (age 24) at the time he 

committed his offenses. Def. Renewed Mot. 7. 

The Government counters that one of the circumstances Defendant previously relied 

on—his ineligibility for First Step Act credits—no longer exists. Gov. Resp. 8. As a result of his 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 6 of 9
7 – OPINION & ORDER

newfound eligibility, Defendant’s projected release date has been moved from February 2032 to 

February 2031. Id. While the Government agrees that Defendant’s rehabilitation has been strong 

in the past year, it argues that simply following the rules and availing oneself of programming 

opportunities is not extraordinary and compelling. Id. at 8-9. The Government also notes that 

Defendant provides no updates on his health or conditions of incarceration and points to no 

changes in his family circumstances. Id. at 7. 

The Court agrees with the Government. Defendant has not shown a significant change in 

circumstances since his last motion such that compassionate release is now warranted. He has 

shown progress in the right direction, which is commendable, but his circumstances are not 

extraordinary and compelling. He provides no updated argument on his health or conditions of 

confinement and points to no urgent circumstances. He is now receiving First Step Act credits. 

One more year of rehabilitation does not make his case extraordinary and compelling. 

Relying in part on a hypothetical in the amended Guidelines, Defendant argues that his 

young age at the time he committed the offense, combined with rehabilitation, could constitute 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Def. Renewed Mot. 7. The Sentencing Commission 

suggested that those two factors could be found to be extraordinary and compelling, and if they 

were, a non-retroactive change in the law could serve as a guide to determine the extent of an 

appropriate reduction in the defendant’s sentence. U.S. Sentencing Commission, Amendments to 

the Sentencing Guidelines at 12. The Court finds that Defendant’s age at the time of offense and 

his rehabilitation are not extraordinary and compelling. Defendant was 24 at the time of his 

offense, and while he argues that his rehabilitation is “exceptional,” Def. Mot. 7, his risk 

assessment was medium until his most recent assessment, id. Ex. D. The Court commends 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 7 of 9
8 – OPINION & ORDER

Defendant for his recent progress, but he has not shown extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances. 

II. Sentencing Factors

The Court also concludes that the sentencing factors do not favor a reduction of 

Defendant’s sentence. The first six factors are relevant here. These factors are: (1) “the nature 

and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the 

need for the sentence imposed” to, among other things, “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” 

“promote respect for the law,” “provide just punishment,” “afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct,” and “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant”; (3) “the kinds 

of sentences available”; (4) “the kinds of sentence and sentencing range established for . . . the 

applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in 

the guidelines”; (5) “any pertinent policy statement,” and (6) “the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(6). 

As the Government points out, Defendant’s conduct was serious. Gov. Resp. 10-11. 

Defendant has several prior convictions and often violated the conditions of probation or 

supervision. Id. at 11. While Defendant has shown recent progress, the first and second factors 

do not favor a reduction in his sentence. As for the third, fourth, and sixth factors, Defendant was 

sentenced to the mandatory minimum, below the guideline range. He has not shown 

circumstances justifying a departure from that sentence. 

III. Policy Statement

The Government argues that reducing Defendant’s sentence would be inconsistent with 

the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. Gov. Resp. 13-14. Defendant does not address 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 8 of 9
9 – OPINION & ORDER

the policy statement, instead arguing that the most recent version of the Guidelines does not 

apply. The Court has concluded that it does. Even if the policy statement did not apply, 

Defendant has failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances and has not shown 

that reducing his sentence would be consistent with the sentencing factors. Consideration of the 

policy statement does not change the outcome here.

The Government points to the policy statement’s directive to consider whether Defendant 

is a danger to the community. Gov. Resp. 13 (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)(2)). This analysis is 

similar to the analysis above addressing the first two sentencing factors. Ultimately, while 

Defendant has shown recent progress, his offense was serious, he has other criminal history, and 

he violated the conditions of supervised release and parole for other offenses. The Court is not 

prepared to conclude that reducing Defendant’s sentence would be consistent with the policy 

statement. In sum, Defendant has not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons under either 

the current or previous versions of the Guidelines, and reducing his sentence would not be 

consistent with either the sentencing factors or the applicable policy statement. 

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Reduce Sentence [348]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________________.

 

______________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

February 12, 2024

Case 3:14-cr-00267-HZ Document 359 Filed 02/12/24 Page 9 of 9