Opinion
4:17-cr-00459
05-27-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RYAN D. DRUMMOND, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS. 30 & 32]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Finding that Defendant Ryan Drummond does not raise extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction, the Court DENIES Defendant's compassionate release motion.
I. Background
In 2018, Defendant Drummond pleaded guilty to a gun possession offense. The Court imposed a below-Guidelines 90-month prison sentence.
Doc. 15.
Doc. 29 (Sealed).
In late September 2020, Drummond filed a pro se motion for compassionate release. Although the Court appointed counsel for Defendant in October 2020, that counsel did not supplement Defendant's motion until April 5, 2022. The Government then filed an opposition brief.
Doc. 30.
Doc. 32. On March 31, 2022, the Court ordered defense counsel to file a motion within seven days.
Doc. 35. The Government filed Defendant's medical records under seal. Doc. 36.
II. Compassionate Release Framework and the COIVD-19 Pandemic
In 2018, Congress changed the law to make compassionate release more readily available to federal inmates. Under the new rules, to bring a motion, a defendant must first meet the “exhaustion requirement” by filing a motion with the prison warden and waiting thirty days.
See United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1105 (6th Cir. 2020) (discussing statute's history and purpose).
United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 832 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
After that, a defendant must show two things to obtain relief. First, the defendant must demonstrate that there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.”Second, the defendant must show that the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors also support release.
United States v. Phillips, No. 21-6068, 2022 WL 1112770, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022).
Id. The Sixth Circuit has said that the defendant does not have to make any arguments regarding the Sentencing Commission policy statements. Id.
III. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
In general, the Court has “discretion to define [what counts as] ‘extraordinary and compelling' on [its] own initiative.”
United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2021).
But there are certain circumstances that courts cannot consider. Courts cannot consider facts that existed when the defendant was originally sentenced.
United States v. Hunter, 12 F.4th 555, 570 (6th Cir. 2021).
And, a defendant's COVID-19-based petitions generally cannot warrant relief. In a 2021 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit-whose rulings bind this Court-ruled that a defendant who has the opportunity to receive a COVID-19 vaccine generally cannot succeed on a motion citing the risk of contracting COIVD-19. And, only in certain rare circumstances in which a defendant presents a “compelling reason justifying the failure to be vaccinated despite access to the vaccine, ” can an unvaccinated person present a successful compassionate release COVID-19 claim.
United States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747, 751 (6th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted); United States v. Traylor, 16 F.4th 485, 487 (6th Cir. 2021).
Id; see also United States v. Estevez-Ulloa, No. 21-2432, 2022 WL 1165771, at *2 (3d Cir. Apr. 20, 2022) (“Inmates who refuse the vaccine without just cause forgo a powerful protection against illness; they cannot claim that they are at serious risk while declining a potent tool to reduce that very risk.”).
Other arguments, however, could warrant relief, especially when taken together. For example, a defendant's age and declining health conditions-independent of COVID-19 risk-may be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons. Courts have also found extraordinary and compelling reasons where the defendant was “the sole available family member to care reliably for his two minor children.”
See, e.g., United States v. Stacks, No. 1-cr-135, 2022 WL 1214883, at *3 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 25, 2022) (granting relief where “Defendant (1) [was] more than 65 years old, (2) [was] experiencing a serious decline in his health because of aging, and (3) [ . . . ] served well more than 10 years in prison.”).
United States v. Francisco-Ovalle, No. 18-cr-526, 2022 WL 1094730, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022) (citing United States v. Lisi, 440 F.Supp.3d 246, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)).
Lastly, the rehabilitation of a defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. But, evidence demonstrating “rehabilitation may be considered along with other circumstances in deciding whether extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release exist.”
28 U.S.C. § 994(t) (“Rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.”).
United States v. Hernandez-Carrillo, No. 2:08-CR-55-2, 2022 WL 633568, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2022); see also United States v. Glynn, No. 06-cr-580, 2022 WL 562652, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2022) (“The Court may now take account of [Defendant's] upbringing and relative youth at the time of the offense conduct in conjunction with the evidence of his rehabilitation and changed character in the twenty years that [Defendant] has been in custody -- something the Court could not consider at the time of sentencing -- and this contributes to the Court's assessment of the extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a reduction in [Defendant's] sentence.”).
IV. Discussion
Because the Court decides this motion based on Defendant Drummond's lack of extraordinary and compelling reasons, it does not need to consider the application of the § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1008 (6th Cir. 2020).
Defendant's pro se motion cites the COIVD-19 pandemic and his rehabilitation as grounds for relief. In particular, Defendant references his preexisting conditions of asthma and pre-diabetes, which put him at risk for serve illness from COIVD-19. He also cites the crowded and unsanitary conditions at FCI Hazelton when he filed the pro se motion in September 2020. And he presents his admirable achievements while incarcerated, including classes he completed and his placement in an “honor dormitory.”And lastly, he refers to his supportive family.
Doc. 30-1. Defendant's counsel-assisted motion does not raise any specific compelling and extraordinary circumstances, despite its brief headings that purport to do so.
Id. at 7-8.
Id. at 8.
Id. at 3.
Id. at 4.
These grounds do not allow the Court to grant compassionate release. The COIVD-19 argument is foreclosed by Sixth Circuit precedent. Also, Defendant declined to be vaccinated and has not provided a compelling justification for the refusal. Defendant does not contend that he is the only caretaker to provide for his family. And while laudable, Defendant's rehabilitative efforts, on their own, do not provide grounds for a sentence reduction.
Doc. 35 at 7 (citing Ex. 3).
V. Conclusion
The Court DENIES the compassionate release motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.