Opinion
16-20817
06-17-2021
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Demitrius Manderfield, Defendant.
Anthony P. Patti, Mag. Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [91]
JUDITH E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Demitrius Manderfield's motion for compassionate release from FCI Butner Medium II due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 91.) For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED. Background On June 12, 2018, the Court sentenced Defendant to 120 months' imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to one count of Sex Trafficking of a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). (ECF No. 74.)
On April 17, 2020, Defendant moved for compassionate release and/or reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), arguing that the danger posed to him by the COVID-19 pandemic due to his sickle cell disease constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for release. (ECF No. 77, PageID.388-390.) The United States responded in opposition to the motion on April 24, 2020 (ECF No. 82), and Defendant replied on April 26, 2020. (ECF No. 85.) Following a hearing on April 28, 2020, the Court denied Defendant's motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 86.)
On March 1, 2021, Defendant filed a renewed motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 91.) The United States provided a copy of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Health Services Immunization Record form for Defendant, indicating that Defendant declined to receive the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on February 26, 2021. E-mail from Sara Woodward, Assistant U.S. Att'y, to William Barkholz, Case Manager to Judge Judith E. Levy (Mar. 4, 202110:09 EST) (on file with the Court). Accordingly, Defendant apparently declined the vaccine and then requested compassionate release through the courts approximately three days later. Neither Defendant, in his motion, nor the BOP immunization records form, indicates the reason for his refusal. (See id.)
Analysis
Compassionate-release motions require a “three-step” inquiry:
First, the Court must “find that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction”;
Second, the Court must “ensure that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission”; and
Finally, the Court must “consider all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 518 (6th Cir. 2021). “If each of these requirements are met, the district court may reduce the term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” Id.
The Court denies Defendant's motion for compassionate release because his access to the COVID-19 vaccine mitigates the concern about extraordinary and compelling medical conditions that might otherwise compel release. Courts in this circuit have consistently refused to find extraordinary and compelling medical circumstances when a defendant declines the COVID-19 vaccine. See, e.g., United States v. Goston, No. 15-20694 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2021) (Levy, J.); United States v. Macgregor, No. 15-20093 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2021) (Leitman, J.); United States v. Ervin, No. 14-000195 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2021) (Richardson, J.). Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise that the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective at preventing COVID-19 in individuals who have not previously contracted COVID-19, and “[e]fficacy [i]s similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants [with] evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.” The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine-United States, December 2020, Centers for Disease Control (Jan. 28, 2021) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6950e2.htm?scid=mm69 50e2w.
Because there are no extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, the Court need not consider the remaining compassionate release factors at this time. See Elias, 984 F.3d at 518.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.