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

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Cesar Humberto Angulo Felix,

Defendant.

No. CR-16-00002-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Cesar Angulo Felix is an inmate with the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”). He has filed a one-page motion for compassionate release due to ongoing health 

concerns from the COVID-19 pandemic. Doc. 49. The government has filed a response. 

Doc. 51. No reply has been filed. For reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion.

I. Background.

On May 17, 2016, Defendant received a 63-month prison sentence after pleading 

guilty to reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Doc. 33. Defendant 

presently is confined at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California 

(“USP-Victorville). See Federal BOP, https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname

.jsp#inmate_results (last visited June 8, 2020). His projected release date is July 22, 2020. 

See id.

Defendant asserts that he is at high risk from the coronavirus because he has diabetes 

requiring twice-daily insulin injections. Doc. 49 at 1. He further states that he has elderly 

family members with the same condition whom he would like to be with during these 

Case 2:16-cr-00002-DGC Document 52 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3
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

dangerous and stressful times. Id. The government argues that the motion must be denied 

because Defendant has not exhausted administrative remedies. Doc. 51 at 1, 4-10. The 

Court agrees.

II. Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and the First Step Act.

Compassionate release is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), as amended by the First 

Step Act of 2018. Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, at 5239-40 (2018); see United 

States v. Parker, No. 2:98-CR-00749-CAS-1, 2020 WL 2572525, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 

2020) (citing United States v. Willis, 382 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1187 (D.N.M. 2019)). Section

3582(c) previously provided for compassionate release only upon motion of the BOP 

Director. See id.; United States v. McCollough, No. CR-15-00336-001-PHX-DLR, 2020 

WL 2812841, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2020). The First Step Act amended § 3582(c) to 

permit motions for compassionate release by defendants. See id.; United States v. Baye, 

No. 3:12-CR-00115-RCJ, 2020 WL 2857500, at *8 (D. Nev. June 2, 2020) (“The First 

Step Act materially altered § 3582(c)(1)(A) as previously only the [BOP] Director could

bring a motion for compassionate release.”) (comparing § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2018) with 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (2002)).

A defendant may bring a motion for compassionate release only after (1) requesting

the BOP to make such a motion on his behalf, and (2) exhausting all administrative appeals 

after the BOP has denied the request, or 30 days have elapsed after the warden received the 

request, whichever is earlier. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see United States v. Millage, No. 3:13-CR234-SI, 2020 WL 2857165, at *1 (D. Or. June 2, 2020). “The requirement to exhaust 

administrative remedies or wait 30 days after the warden receives a request is 

jurisdictional.” United States v. Carlucci, No. CR 10-00464-01-KHV, 2020 WL 2527013, 

at *2 (D. Ariz. May 18, 2020) (citing United States v. Read-Forbes, No. 12-20099-01-

KHV, 2020 WL 1888856, at *3-5 (D. Kan. Apr. 16, 2020)); see also United States v. 

Weidenhamer, No. CR-16-01072-001-PHX-ROS, 2020 WL 1929200, at *2 (D. Ariz. 

Apr. 21, 2020) (“The critical inquiry is whether the text of § 3582 allows for the Court to 

excuse Defendant’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. There is no indication 

Case 2:16-cr-00002-DGC Document 52 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3
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

in the statutory text, nor has Defendant pointed to other supporting evidence, that would 

establish Congress meant to confer on the courts the authority to waive exhaustion.”);

United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) (defendant’s motion seeking 

compassionate release in light of the COVID-19 pandemic was “futile” because he “failed 

to comply with § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement,” which “presents a glaring 

roadblock foreclosing compassionate release at this point”).

III. Defendant’s Motion.

Defendant does not claim to have filed a request for compassionate release with the 

warden of USP-Victorville. Thus, while the Court does not take lightly Defendant’s 

concerns about exposure to COVID-19 during his confinement with the BOP,1the Court 

lacks jurisdiction to consider his motion. See United States v. Carlucci, No. CR 10-00464-

01-KHV, 2020 WL 2527013, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 18, 2020); Weidenhamer, 2020 WL 

1929200, at *2.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for compassionate release (Doc. 49) is 

denied for lack of jurisdiction.

2

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

1 As of June 8, 2020, no inmate or staff at USP-Victorville has been diagnosed with

COVID-19. Federal BOP, COVID-19, Coronavirus, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus 

/index.jsp.

2 Given this ruling, the Court need not address whether Defendant has shown the 

requisite extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release under

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Case 2:16-cr-00002-DGC Document 52 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3