1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Court has received Defendant Michael Ralph Martinez’s Motion for 

Compassionate Release (“Motion”) (Doc. 59) and the United States’ Response 

(“Response”). (Doc. 63) The time to file a reply has passed and the Motion is ripe for 

review. The Court will deny the Motion for the reasons that follow:

Defendant seeks compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A)(i), 

requesting that his sentence be modified to time served and followed by a term of 

supervised release for life. (Doc. 59 at 1) He cites health concerns and the ongoing COVID19 pandemic as grounds for his release. (Doc. 59 at 9–11) 

Section 3582(C)(1)(A)(i) allows for compassionate release when a Defendant has 

exhausted all administrative remedies and when the Court finds that “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” The Court also considers the sentencing 

factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies by petitioning the Bureau of 

Prisons via his warden for compassionate release on October 5, 2020. (Doc. 59 at 7)

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Ralph Martinez, 

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-18-0239-01-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:18-cr-00239-SPL Document 64 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Therefore, the Court may turn to the substance of the Motion. This Court has adopted a 

four-factor test when determining whether to grant motions for release on COVID-19 

grounds. United States v. Steinbart, No. CR-20-00485-01-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. filed March 

26, 2020) (Doc. 125) citing (United States v. Terrone, 454 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1022 (D. Nev. 

2020)). The Court considers equally the four following factors:

(1) the original grounds for the defendant’s ... detention; 

(2) the specificity of the defendant’s stated COVID-19 

concerns; 

(3) the extent to which the proposed release plan is tailored to 

mitigate or exacerbate other COVID-19 risks to the defendant; 

and 

(4) the likelihood that the defendant’s proposed release would 

increase COVID-19 risks to others. 

Id. Here, however, this factor test is irrelevant, because the Government has shown that 

Defendant previously tested positive for COVID-19. (Doc. 63 at 2) Defendant therefore is 

unlikely to spread or contract COVID-19 again, at least for the time being. See United 

States v. Gouveia, No. CR 08-00739-SOM-2, 2020 WL 6065299, at *5 (D. Haw. Oct. 14, 

2020) (detailing CDC findings on COVID-19 reinfection and denying compassionate 

release to an inmate who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 for failing to show 

extraordinary and compelling reasons under § 3582(C)(1)(A)). The Court instead turns 

directly to the § 3553(a) factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

defendant’s criminal history and characteristics; the need for the sentence imposed; the 

kinds of sentences available; the established sentencing range; any pertinent policies; the 

need to avoid sentence disparity among similar defendants; and the need to provide 

restitution to victims. 

Defendant possessed 1,799 files of child pornography, some of it involving violence 

against children. (Doc. 63 at 4) He pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1), 

and 2256, Distribution of Child Pornography, a Class C Felony offense. (Doc. 57 at 1) On 

April 24, 2019, Defendant was sentenced to serve a period of 97 months, with a credit of 

Case 2:18-cr-00239-SPL Document 64 Filed 02/24/21 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

time served. (Doc. 55 at 1) This sentence is typical of the nature of the offense. Federal 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2G.2(a)(2) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2018). He has been 

diagnosed with Pedophilic Disorder and showed he believed children enjoyed sex acts and 

that he was sexually attracted to pornographic material involving children. (Doc. 63 at 5) 

Defendant has not undergone any treatment for his disorder. (Doc. 63 at 9–10) Because of 

this, the Court considers him a danger to the community. Defendant has a toddler-aged son.

(Doc. 63 at 9–10) He seeks home release, where he would live with his wife and child. 

(Doc. 59 at 14)

Defendant’s stated COVID-19 concerns are his health conditions: sleep apnea, 

anxiety, latent tuberculosis, and his fear of contracting COVID-19 at FCI Stafford, where 

he is currently housed. (Doc. 59 at 9–11) The Government has shown evidence that 

Defendant was treated for his latent tuberculosis and his case was marked as “resolved.” 

(Docs. 63 at 14, 63-1 at 48) Furthermore, when he was diagnosed with COVID-19 he 

showed no symptoms, undercutting his arguments that individuals with latent tuberculosis

are subject to a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. (Docs. 59 at 5, 63 at 15) 

Furthermore, “absent a specific showing that the defendant himself remains 

susceptible to reinfection, a previous diagnosis of COVID-19 cuts against a finding of 

extraordinary and compelling reasons.” United States v. Ballenger, No. CR16-5535 BHS, 

2021 WL 308814, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2021). Additionally, the Government showed 

Defendant was offered the vaccine, and refused it. (Doc. 63 at 10) When a Defendant has 

refused the vaccine, this Court has found that fact undercuts the argument that risk of 

serious illness from contracting COVID-19 is “an extraordinary and compelling reason for 

his immediate release.” United States v. Williams, No. CR1701279001PHXDLR, 2021 WL 

321904, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 1, 2021).

Weighing the fact that Defendant is a danger to the community and possibly his own 

family with the fact that he has not shown a susceptibility to the COVID-19 virus, the Court 

does not find extraordinary and compelling reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A)(i).

Having carefully considered the Motion and Response, for the foregoing reasons,

Case 2:18-cr-00239-SPL Document 64 Filed 02/24/21 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release. (Doc. 

59)

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00239-SPL Document 64 Filed 02/24/21 Page 4 of 4