USA v. Organes (June 29, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS ORGANES
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
June 29, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS ORGANES, Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1864156Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division,EASTERN DIVISION.UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.JESUS ORGANESNo. 23 CR 27|Filed: 06/29/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsEdward Anthony Liva Jr., AUSA Chicago, Assistant U.S.Attorneys, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL,for United States of America.Michael Eric Baker, Spector & Baker, Chicago, IL, for JesusOrganes.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERMARY M. ROWLAND United States District Judge*1 Defendant Jesus Organes (“Organes”) seekscompassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), due to family circumstances: his wife is facing potentialdeportation and will be unable to serve as caregiver oftheir minor son, who has autism. [70]. The Governmentfiled a response in opposition to Organes's pro se motion.[79]. For the following reasons, Mr. Organes's motion forcompassionate release [70] is denied.I. Background FactsOn January 18, 2023, Mr. Organes was indicted for variouscrimes involving controlled substances crimes. [1]. Theindictment held one count (Count I) alleging that Mr. Organesand his wife, Amairani Galeana, between about March 22,2021 and June 17, 2021, conspired with each other todistribute 400 grams or more of a mixture and substancecontaining a detectable amount of fentanyl, a Schedule IIControlled Substance; 100 grams or more of a mixture andsubstance containing a detectable amount of p-fluorofentanyl,a Schedule I controlled substance and an analogue of fentanyl,a Schedule II controlled substance; and a quantity of a mixtureand substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, aSchedule II Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 846. Id. The indictment also held five counts (Counts 2–6)alleging that, in the same time period, Organes distributed orpossessed with intent to distribute the controlled substancesin violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Id.Organes was arrested on January 20, 2023. [26]. Andon December 16, 2024, Organes pleaded guilty to theconspiracy charge, Count I. [47]; [66]. The rest of thecharges were dismissed. [66]. On May 2, 2025, this Courtsentenced Organes to 36 months’ imprisonment – below therecommended range of 70 to 87 months. [58]; [66]. Organesbegan serving his sentence on May 20, 2025. [66] at 2. Mr.Organes filed this Motion for Compassionate Release onSeptember 4, 2025, requesting a sentence reduction under 18U.S.C. § 3582. [70]. The Government filed a brief opposingthe motion on December 10, 2025. [79]. Organes did not filea reply in support of his motion.Organes's wife's case was ongoing during this time. Ms.Galeana was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment onJanuary 28, 2025. [89]; [90]. She began her sentence onFebruary 3, 2026. [90]. Furthermore, Ms. Galeana is a green-card holder, and her conviction and incarceration may lead toher deportation. [80] at 8.II. LEGAL STANDARDPursuant to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), acourt may reduce an inmate's term of imprisonment after hehas exhausted all “administrative rights to appeal a failure ofthe Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant'sbehalf” or after 30 days have passed “from the receipt of sucha request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whicheveris earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).Once the exhaustion requirement is met, a court may reducethe defendant's term of imprisonment if the court firstfinds that “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranta sentence reduction, and second, that the reduction isconsistent with the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d1178, 1180 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020) (affirming district court'sdiscretion to award compassionate release to prisoner who is“outside the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii)” based on“ ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ ”). The defendantbears the burden to establish that he is eligible for a sentencereduction. United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485, 488 (7thCir. 2021).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS ORGANES, Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 “A movant cannot rightly claim he is legally entitledto compassionate release because the background sentencinglaw has changed, but he may argue that he nonethelessdeserves a sentence reduction based on that change and otherrelevant factors.” In re Thomas, 91 F.4th 1240, 1242 (7th Cir.2024); cf. United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th 569, 576 (7thCir. 2021) (“At step one the [defendant] must identify an“extraordinary and compelling” reason warranting a sentencereduction, but that reason cannot include, whether alone orin combination with other factors, consideration of the FirstStep Act's amendment to [a statute].”). If the movant hasshown extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentencereduction, then the court considers the sentencing factors setout in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to determine what reduction toaward. Id. at 576; United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 840(7th Cir. 2022); United States v. Sarno, 37 F.4th 1249, 1253(7th Cir. 2022).III. Analysisa. ExhaustionThere is no dispute that Organes has exhausted hisadministrative remedies as required by § 3582(c)(1)(A). [79]at 7–8. Mr. Organes filed a request for compassionate releasewith the warden of FCI Terre Haute on or about July 22,2025, and the warden denied the request around October 30,2025. Id. The Government does not challenge the exhaustionrequirement. Id.b. Extraordinary and Compelling ReasonsIn determining what constitutes extraordinary and compellingreasons to modify a person's sentence, courts consider theguidance contained in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manualat U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. On April 27, 2023, the U.S. SentencingCommission submitted proposed amendments to § 1B1.13 toupdate its policy statement to cover prisoner-initiated motionsfor compassionate release and those amendments went intoeffect on November 1, 2023. The amended Guidelines defineextraordinary and compelling reasons as existing under thefollowing circumstances or a combination thereof: medicalcircumstances, age, family circumstances, victim of abuse,other reasons of similar gravity, and unusually long sentences.U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(6).Organes argues that he is entitled to a sentence reductionbecause of family circumstances; his wife is facingdeportation, and his children, including his severely autisticson, will be left without a caregiver. See [70] at 1. Organesadditionally argues he is deeply rehabilitated. Id. TheGovernment contends that Mr. Organes has not establishedthat his wife is incapacitated as required by § 1B1.13.[79] at 10. The Court finds that Organes has not presentedextraordinary or compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.i. Family CircumstancesSome family circumstances, such as the “the death orincapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minorchild,” rise to the level of extraordinary and compellingreasons for compassionate release. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A). Mr. Organes argues that Ms. Galeana is incapacitatedby her incarceration or impending deportation, and that thereis no alternate caregiver for their minor son. [70] at 8. Hecontends that this presents an extraordinary and compellingreason that his sentence should be reduced because thereduction will allow him to serve as the primary caregiver ofhis minor daughter, Mayte, and son, Jesus, who has severeautism. [70] at 2.Mr. Organes has not shown exceptional family circumstances.Ms. Galeana arguably is incapacitated due to her incarcerationand future deportation. Compare United States v. Reedy, 2024WL 5247954, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2024) (defining“incapacitated” based on the term's plain meaning andstatutory context as when “person is incapable of caringfor themselves”) with United States v. Ray, 2023 WL3411024, at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 12, 2023) (explaining thatincarceration can qualify as legal incapacitation and mayconstitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances). ButMr. Organes’ children are expected to be in the care of theirmaternal grandmother in Mexico during Mr. Organes's andMs. Galeana's incarceration. [82] at 3. Mr. Organes has notshown placing the children in the care of their grandmotherconstitutes an extraordinary or compelling reason for hisrelease. See United States v. Franco, 2024 WL 3363576, at*2 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2024) (holding deportation of minorchild's parent was not an extraordinary circumstance whenthe movant did not show that the minor's other caregiverwas incapacitated); see also United States v. Willis, 2024WL 4452134, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2024) (holding thatplacement of a defendant's children in foster care does notconstitute incapacitation).*3 The Court has sympathy for Mr. Organes's family'sdifficult situation.1 A detrimental impact on family stabilityregrettably is a consequence of incarceration. United States v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS ORGANES, Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Quintana, 2021 WL 4521150, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 1, 2021)(“Many prisoners would like to be in their children's livesbut that is an unfortunate consequence of their crimes.”). Itis unfortunate that a child with disabilities will have to leavehis home country without his parents, and that he may nothave access to the same level of care that he has in the UnitedStates. However, considering that Ms. Galeana's incarcerationand deportation do not clearly qualify as incapacitation,and even if they did, Ms. Galeana's mother will serve ascaregiver for Mr. Organes's son, these circumstances are notextraordinary and compelling reasons for a compassionaterelease.ii. RehabilitationMr. Organes also argues that his rehabilitation, as evidencedby his clean disciplinary record, his participation in programssuch as Parenting from Prison, and his work in prison, shouldbe considered along with his family circumstances to showextraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction.[70] at 4. He argues that “post-sentencing rehabilitation maybe ‘highly relevant to several of the § 3553(a) factors.’ ” Id.(quoting Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 491 (2011)).Although his efforts are commendable, Mr. Organes'srehabilitation alone is not a valid consideration in findingextraordinary and compelling circumstances. § 1B1.13(d)(“rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, anextraordinary and compelling reason for purposes of thispolicy statement”); see United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4that 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2022). The Seventh Circuit confirmedthat rehabilitation is “more suitably addressed as part of the§ 3553(a) analysis.” United States v. Whited, No. 21-1644,2022 WL 1259028, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022). Thisanalysis is only conducted in the second step after a finding ofextraordinary and compelling circumstances in the first step.Peoples, 41 F.4th at 840.As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Organes’rehabilitative efforts, even considered alongside his familycircumstances, do not currently warrant a sentence reduction.c. Factors Set Forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)Mr. Organes argues that there is no longer a need for hisincarceration and that he has shown rehabilitation, which arefactors to be considered in a sentence reduction. See [70]; 18U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1-2). However, because Mr. Organes doesnot assert extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentencereduction, the Court does not reach the issue of consideringthe sentencing factors under § 3553(a).IV. ConclusionAfter thoroughly considering all the facts presented, the Courtdoes not believe that Mr. Organes presents extraordinaryand compelling reasons for compassionate release under18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, Mr. Organes'srequest for compassionate release [70] is denied.*4 ENTER:All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1864156Footnotes1Mr. Organes cites several cases to support the idea that district courts within the Seventh Circuit grant motionsfor compassionate release based on a general concept of family stability. [70] at 2 and 7. However, manyof the cases cited in Mr. Organes's brief do not exist or are misquoted, as discussed in the Government'sresponse. [79] at 9 and 10. The use of these misquoted and nonexistent cases are a hallmark of artificialintelligence (“AI”) “hallucinations.” The Seventh Circuit has acknowledged the growing use of artificialintelligence, especially by pro se litigants, and reiterated the importance of accuracy and honesty even whenunrepresented parties use AI. See Jones v. Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, No. 25-1251, 2026 WL157661 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026). Nevertheless, the Court focuses on the factual and legal merits of the motionin issuing this decision.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS ORGANES, Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access