Page 1 of 5

Case No. 5:10cr39-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:10cr39-RH

MARTIN RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING A SENTENCE REDUCTION

The defendant Martin Ramirez-Rodriguez has served more than 126 months 

on a 530-month sentence in the Bureau of Prisons. The lengthy sentence resulted 

from offenses involving drugs and machine guns. He has moved for a sentence 

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which allows a reduction for

“extraordinary and compelling reasons.” This order denies the motion as a matter 

of discretion based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

I

Federal law has long allowed a district judge to reduce a sentence based on 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” or in other narrowly defined 

circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This is sometimes referred to rather 

imprecisely as “compassionate release.”

Case 5:10-cr-00039-RH-GRJ Document 442 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

Case No. 5:10cr39-RH

Until recently, a district court could grant such a sentence reduction only on 

motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. The First Step Act changed this, 

allowing a sentence reduction on the motion of the Director or the defendant. See 

First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5238. A 

defendant may file such a motion after exhausting administrative remedies. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Or the defendant may file such a motion without 

exhausting administrative remedies if more than 30 days have passed since the 

defendant delivered a request for relief to the warden of the defendant’s facility. Id. 

Mr. Ramirez filed this motion more than 30 days after requesting relief from 

the warden. He has met the exhaustion-or-30-days requirement. And the

government may have waived any contrary contention by failing to respond to Mr. 

Ramirez’s motion as required by Local Rule 7.1.

II

The governing statute allows a sentence reduction if, after considering the 

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent applicable, the court finds 

that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and the 

“reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The statute also allows a reduction for a 

defendant over age 70 who meets other criteria, but Mr. Ramirez is age 37; he does 

not seek relief based on the over-70 provision. 

Case 5:10-cr-00039-RH-GRJ Document 442 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

Case No. 5:10cr39-RH

The covid-19 pandemic is an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce 

a sentence, if not for any defendant then at least for a defendant who is at 

heightened risk from the disease. See, e.g., United States v. McKinney, No. 4:04-cr3-RH (N.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2020); United States v. Mize, No. 5:15-cr-25-RH (N.D. 

Fla. Nov. 1, 2020); United States v. Ransom, No. 4:10-cr-54-RH (N.D. Fla. Sept. 

21, 2020). The government in this district ordinarily has acknowledged that a 

defendant at heightened risk is eligible for a reduction. See, e.g., United States 

v.Mize, No. 5:15-cr-25-RH, Government’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Compassionate 

Release, ECF No. 327 at 3; see also United States v. Ransom, No. 4:10-cr-54-RH 

at 5 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2020) (noting the government’s inconsistent approach). 

That a sentence is abnormally harsh or out of line with current standards also may 

be an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce the sentence. See, e.g., United 

States v. Cotrell, No. 4:01-cr-11-RH (N.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2020). 

That a defendant is eligible for a reduction does not mean a court should 

exercise its discretion to grant a reduction. The governing statute, § 3582(c)(1)(A), 

explicitly requires the court to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the 

extent applicable. 

Mr. Ramirez’s offenses of conviction were conspiracy to export machine 

guns (count 1), conspiracy to possess and transfer machine guns (count 2), 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of 

Case 5:10-cr-00039-RH-GRJ Document 442 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

Case No. 5:10cr39-RH

cocaine and 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (count 6), possessing a 

machine gun in furtherance of the count 6 drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c) (count 7), and unlawful reentry after deportation (count 10). The 

minimum mandatory sentence on the count 6 drug offense was 10 years. The

minimum mandatory sentence on count 7, the § 924(c) offense, was 30 years

consecutive to any other sentence. So the combined minimum mandatory sentence 

was 40 years. Mr. Ramirez asserts that if sentenced today he would face a 

minimum mandatory of only 10 years, but that is incorrect. The minimum 

mandatory today would still be the same—40 years or 480 months. 

Based on the entire record, including the presentence report, I conclude as a 

matter of discretion that Mr. Ramirez’s sentence should not be reduced at this time. 

Mr. Ramirez’s offenses, including those involving machine guns, warrant a 

sentence substantially longer than Mr. Ramirez has served or will have served 

when the risk of covid-19 subsides. A reduced sentence allowing release during the 

pandemic would not be sufficient to meet the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

III

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Mr. Ramirez’s motion for a sentence reduction, ECF No. 441, is denied. 

Case 5:10-cr-00039-RH-GRJ Document 442 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

Case No. 5:10cr39-RH

2. The clerk must provide copies of this order to Mr. Ramirez himself by 

mail and to the attorneys of record and the Federal Public Defender through the 

electronic filing system.

SO ORDERED on December 21, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cr-00039-RH-GRJ Document 442 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 5