Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 6:16-cr-00120-AA

 3:09-cr-00357-AA

 OPINION AND ORDER

 

vs.

TONY DION PARKER,

Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge:

Now before the Court is defendant Tony Parker’s Motion to Reduce Sentence 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ECF No. 58. For the following reasons, the 

motion is DENEID.

BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2017, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C §§

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii), and 846. ECF No. 41. This plea was entered as part of 

negotiated settlement with the government. ECF No. 42. The criminal conduct to 
Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

which defendant pleaded guilty occurred while he was on supervised release to this 

Court in Case No. 3:09-cr-00357-AA.

On March 19, 2018, the Court sentenced defendant to 120 months in custody 

with a five-year term of supervised release to follow. ECF No. 49. Defendant was 

also sentenced to a consecutive sentence of one year and a day in supervised release 

violation case. Defendant then appealed the findings made at sentencing. ECF No. 

52. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed this Court’s decisions. ECF 

No. 57. Defendant has been serving his sentence at FCI Florence with a projected

release date of June 30, 2025.

Defendant filed the present motion on September 3, 2020. ECF No. 58. The 

Court held oral argument on this matter on October 27, 2020. ECF No. 67. The 

parties later filed supplemental briefing in this matter in January of 2021. ECF No. 

68 and 69.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has 

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

(2010). Compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) provides an exception in rare

cases. Until 2018, § 3582 allowed compassionate release only upon a motion by the 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). With the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, § 603, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018), Congress authorized courts 

to modify a defendant's sentence on a motion filed by a defendant “after the defendant 

has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of 
Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

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[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may reduce a defendant's sentence if it finds that 

two conditions are met: (1) that “[e]extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant 

such a reduction” and (2) “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” If the court finds that those 

conditions are met, before granting a sentence reduction, it must “consider[ ] the 

factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) to the extent applicable[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1107–08 (6th Cir. 2020) 

(reasoning that “[18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(c)(1) and (c)(2)'s parallel language and structure[ 

] compel us to conclude that compassionate release hearings are sentencemodification proceedings and that courts considering motions filed under § 3582(c)(1) 

must follow a Dillon-style test” and describing the three-part test for compassionate 

release motions (citing Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827, 829–30)).

The Sentencing Commission's policy statement regarding sentence reductions 

under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The policy statement identifies 

categories of extraordinary and compelling reasons, including the defendant's age, 

medical conditions, and family circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)-(C). It 

also requires courts to find that “the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any 

other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).” Id. § 

1B1.13(2). But this policy statement, which has not been updated since the First Step 
Page 4 – OPINION AND ORDER

Act amended § 3582(c)(1)(A), only applies to motions filed by the BOP Director on 

behalf of a defendant. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). On 

a defendant's direct motion for compassionate release, the policy statement “may 

inform a district court's discretion, ... but [it is] not binding.” Id. As a result, the court 

may consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a defendant 

might raise. Id.

DISCUSSION

First, the Court finds, and the government concedes, that defendant has 

exhausted his administrative remedies. 

Turning to the substance of the motion, defendant argues that extraordinary 

and compelling reasons justifying a reduction in sentence exist in this case due to his 

underlying health conditions in the face of the pandemic caused by the 2019 novel 

coronavirus (“COVID-19”). Defendant is a 57-year-old man with a history of COPD 

and asthma. The U.S. Center for Disease Control has identified both of these 

conditions as increasing a person’s risk of developing severe complications from 

COVID-19. 

The Court would be inclined to find that extraordinary and compelling reasons 

exist in this case, however, COVID-19 conditions at FCI Florence appear to be under 

control at this time. There are currently no active cases among inmates at that 

facility. BOP also reports that 1163 of the 1261 inmates at FCC Florence have been 

fully inoculated against the virus. Given these facts, the Court does not find that 
Page 5 – OPINION AND ORDER

extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to reduce defendant’s sentence at this 

time.

Also, though the pandemic, and associated conditions at FCI Florence, have 

made defendant’s incarceration harsher than the Court anticipated at the time of 

sentencing, the conditions experienced by him have not been so severe or unusual 

that they constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. 

The Court need not reach consideration of the applicable sentencing factors 

under § 3553(a), without a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons.1

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s motion to Reduce Sentence 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (ECF No. 58) is DENIED. This denial is 

without prejudice, and defendant may renew the motion if circumstances change.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this _____ day of June 2021.

 __________________________ 

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge

1 The Court does note, however, that defendant received a sentence well 

below his advisory guideline range.

4th

/s/Ann Aiken