Judge frees man with heart disease from 60-year term (2021)

Originally published May 2, 2021. Statements about the law were updated in October 2026; the box below gives today’s rules.

What the law says now (October 2026). A federal judge can reduce a sentence for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons (reasons that are especially unusual and convincing). You must first ask the warden in writing. You can file in court 30 days after the warden gets the request, or sooner if you finish the Bureau of Prisons’ appeals (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). The judge also weighs the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See who may seek compassionate release.

Changes in sentencing law. In Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026), the Supreme Court held that when Congress makes a sentencing change non-retroactive (meaning it does not apply to people already sentenced), such as the First Step Act’s end of “stacked” § 924(c) sentences, the gap between an old sentence and today’s sentence cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason, alone or combined with other reasons. Some older posts here describe court wins on that theory; those wins are history, not today’s law.
Rehabilitation. By law, rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). It can be weighed together with other reasons (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d)).
COVID-19 and outbreaks. Today a court looks at whether the prison is affected, or at imminent risk of being affected, by an ongoing infectious disease outbreak or public health emergency, and whether the person faces a higher risk of severe illness or death that cannot be reduced in time (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(D)).

Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.

A federal judge in New York granted compassionate release to Persio Torres-Nunez, who was serving a 60-year sentence for nonviolent drug and racketeering crimes. The judge pointed to his health risks from Covid-19, his rehabilitation, and how much of his sentence he had already served.

United States v. Torres-Nunez

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81334

April 29, 2021: compassionate release granted for a man with health conditions and a record of rehabilitation.

His case

In 1988, a jury convicted Persio Torres-Nunez of narcotics and racketeering crimes. On July 29, 1988, he was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release. With credit for good conduct, he was scheduled for release in November 2024.

He asked for compassionate release because his BMI (a measure of body weight) and serious heart conditions put him at higher risk of complications if he caught Covid-19.

Why the judge said yes

The court noted that his crimes, while serious, were nonviolent. His rehabilitation showed that the “time he has served in prison has achieved much of the original sentence’s retributive, deterrent, and incapacitative purpose.”

At the time, the court also noted that his sentence was imposed without the benefit of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that under today’s guidelines he surely would not have received such a harsh sentence.

With release expected in November 2024, he had served more than 90% of his expected time in prison. That was double what he would have received if the mandatory Guidelines had applied.

Finally, the court found that Torres-Nunez posed no danger to the public. His many accomplishments in prison showed his rehabilitation. After release, he planned to live with his son and daughter-in-law, an active-duty police officer.

Considering all of these factors, along with his health risks from Covid-19, the court granted Torres-Nunez’s request for compassionate release. It also reduced his supervised release term to three years.

If you want help with a compassionate release request, book a consultation.