-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 06-20439

v.

Hon. George Caram Steeh

FELIX PERAZA MORENO, JR.,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE (ECF NO. 19)

Defendant Felix Peraza Moreno, Jr., moves for compassionate 

release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).1 In 2009, Moreno pleaded guilty 

to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms 

of cocaine. The parties anticipated a guidelines range of 235 to 293 months 

in the plea agreement. The court sentenced Moreno to 240 months of 

imprisonment, which was the statutory minimum. Moreno is currently 

housed at Florence FCI and his anticipated release date is April 9, 2026.

1 Defendant also moves to strike the government’s response as untimely. The Assistant 

U.S. Attorney assigned to this case originally retired, resulting in the government’s 

delayed response. Given the court’s preference of resolving matters on their merits, it 

exercises its discretion in favor of accepting the government’s brief.

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.167 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 8
-2-

Moreno seeks a sentence reduction, based upon the COVID-19 

pandemic, his good behavior, and a recent change in drug sentencing 

laws. Ordinarily, a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment 

once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The statute provides for a 

limited exception, known as “compassionate release,” which is governed by 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. 

Although compassionate release motions were historically initiated only by 

the Bureau of Prisons, the First Step Act allows prisoners to file such 

motions on their own behalf, after exhausting their administrative remedies.

United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1004 (6th Cir. 2020); United States 

v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833-34 (6th Cir. 2020).

The parties agree that Moreno has exhausted his administrative 

remedies, so the court may consider the merits of his motion. When 

reviewing a compassionate-release motion, the court considers the 

following: (1) whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a 

sentence reduction; (2) whether “such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission”; and 

(3) whether “all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” 

support a reduction. United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 518 (6th Cir. 

2021) (quoting United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1101 (6th Cir. 

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.168 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 8
-3-

2020)). “If each of those requirements are met, the district court ‘may 

reduce the term of imprisonment,’ but need not do so.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)).

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts found the 

“extraordinary and compelling” prong to be satisfied based on the 

increased risk of contracting the virus in prison and a defendant’s 

underlying serious health conditions. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 

472 F. Supp.3d 403, 407 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (Type 2 diabetes and 

hypertension, in conjunction with COVID-19 pandemic, constituted 

extraordinary and compelling reasons); United States v. Hargrove, 2021 WL 

509905, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2021) (heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and 

severe obesity, among other ailments). However, as pandemic conditions 

continue to evolve, these factors are less likely to constitute extraordinary 

and compelling reasons. The widespread availability of vaccines, in 

particular, has ameliorated the risk of severe health outcomes. Indeed, the 

Sixth Circuit recently held that “a defendant’s incarceration during the 

COVID-19 pandemic – when the defendant has access to the COVID-19 

vaccine – does not present an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ 

warranting a sentence reduction.” United States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747, 

751 (6th Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Traylor, 16 F.4th 485, 487 

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.169 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 8
-4-

(6th Cir. 2021) (no extraordinary and compelling circumstances based upon 

serious health conditions when inmate received COVID-19 vaccine).

Moreno has been vaccinated against COVID-19 and has not 

indicated that he suffers from a serious health condition. Under these 

circumstances, the pandemic and Moreno’s health do not constitute 

extraordinary and compelling grounds for release.

Moreno mentions his five children in support of his motion. Family 

circumstances that may warrant compassionate release are generally

limited to situations in which the defendant is the only available caregiver 

for minor children or an incapacitated spouse. See, e.g., United States v. 

Gibson, 2021 WL 2549682, at *4 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2021) (“[D]istrict 

courts continue to ‘routinely den[y] motions for compassionate release 

when the defendants cannot show that they would be the only available 

caregiver of a minor child, even if their incarceration imposes substantial 

burdens on a spouse or co-parent to a minor child.’”); United States v.

Green, 2020 WL 6144556, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2020). Moreno has 

not alleged such extraordinary family circumstances here. See also United 

States v. Hunter, 12 F.4th 555, 569 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Section 3582(c)(1)(A) 

precludes a court from simply taking facts that existed at sentencing and 

repackaging them as ‘extraordinary and compelling.’”).

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.170 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 8
-5-

Moreno also cites to changes in drug sentencing laws under section

401 of the First Step Act and Amendment 782 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Under the First Step Act, the mandatory minimum for Moreno’s 

offense was lowered from twenty years to fifteen years. See United States 

v. Wills, 997 F.3d 685, 687 (6th Cir. 2021). Congress did not make this 

change retroactive, however. Id. There is an intra-circuit split within the 

Sixth Circuit over whether a nonretroactive change in sentencing law can 

support a finding of “extraordinary and compelling” reasons under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). See, e.g., United States v. Owens, 996 F.3d 755, 760 (6th 

Cir. 2021) (district court may consider, “along with other factors, the 

disparity between a defendant’s actual sentence and the sentence that he 

would receive if the First Step Act applied.”); United States v. Jarvis, 999 

F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that a district court lacks the authority to 

reduce a defendant's sentence based on a non-retroactive change in the 

law, whether alone or in combination with other factors).

2

Notwithstanding this legal uncertainty, the court finds that the 

particular change in the law at issue here is not substantial enough to 

constitute an extraordinary and compelling basis for relief. If applied to 

2 The court anticipates that this split may be resolved after the en banc hearing granted 

in United States v. McCall, 20 F.4th 1108, 1116 (6th Cir. 2021), rehrg. en banc granted, 

29 F.4th 816 (2022).

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.171 Filed 05/19/22 Page 5 of 8
-6-

Moreno, section 401 of the First Step Act would have reduced his 

mandatory minimum to fifteen years instead of twenty. This potential 

reduction, in itself, is not extraordinary. Contrast this change to section 403 

of the First Step Act, which eliminated mandatory, 25-year consecutive

sentences for a multiple § 924(c) violations charged in the same indictment, 

a change that often resulted in decades-long sentencing disparities for the 

same conduct. See Owens, 996 F.3d at 755 (defendant’s mandatory 

minimum of 1260 months would have been reduced to 300 months under 

the First Step Act); United States v. Baker, No. 10-20513, 2020 WL 

4696594, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2020) (Steeh, J.) (finding “this ‘drastic 

change’ in the law, eliminating such lengthy mandatory sentences, 

constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason to consider a sentence 

reduction”). Moreover, it is not clear that a reduction in the mandatory 

minimum would have affected Moreno’s sentence, given that his sentence 

was within the guidelines range of 235 to 293 months.

Similarly, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines does not 

constitute an extraordinary and compelling basis for relief under the 

circumstances presented here. Amendment 782 lowered the base offense 

level for most drug trafficking crimes. In Moreno’s case, the government 

calculates that a two-level reduction in his offense level would have 

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.172 Filed 05/19/22 Page 6 of 8
-7-

resulted in a sentencing guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. The 

lowering of Moreno’s guidelines range, however, does not provide him with 

a basis for relief under Amendment 782 because he was sentenced to the 

mandatory minimum, which did not change as a result of that amendment. 

A defendant’s sentence may not be “less than any statutorily required 

minimum sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c). See also United States v. 

Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 920 (2009) 

(defendant not eligible for sentence reduction when he received the 

statutory mandatory minimum); United States v. McPherson, 629 F.3d 609, 

611 (6th Cir. 2011) (same).

For these reasons, even if the court could consider changes in the 

sentencing laws since Moreno was sentenced, the court finds that those 

changes either do not apply to him or are not significant enough to fall into 

the extraordinary and compelling category.

Moreno also asserts that he has served 74% of his sentence and has 

been free of disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. Although the court 

appreciates Moreno’s efforts at rehabilitation, it is precluded from 

considering rehabilitation alone as an extraordinary and compelling reason 

for release. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) (“Rehabilitation of the defendant alone 

shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.”).

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.173 Filed 05/19/22 Page 7 of 8
-8-

In conclusion, the reasons presented by Moreno, whether considered 

singly or together, do not present an extraordinary and compelling basis for 

relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his motion for 

compassionate release (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF 

No. 25) is DENIED.

Dated: May 19, 2022

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 19, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on

Felix Peraza Moreno Jr., #43326-039, FCI Florence,

Federal Correctional Institution, Satellite Camp

PO Box 5000, Florence, CO 81226.

s/Brianna Sauve

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cr-20439-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.174 Filed 05/19/22 Page 8 of 8