Opinion
CASE NO. 1:19-cr-00085
01-15-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RASHAWN D. WATSON, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 58] :
Defendant Rashawn D. Watson requests a reduced sentence under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The Government opposes.
In the alternative, Watson asks the Court to recommend that the Bureau of Prisons transfer him to home confinement. The Court cannot order home confinement and declines Watson's request to make a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons on his behalf. See Johnson v . Williams, 4:20 CV 1325, 2020 WL 7324763, *1 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2020) ("The BOP, however, still has the sole authority to decide whether home confinement under the CARES Act is appropriate.") (collecting cases).
Docs. 58, 59, 66.
Doc. 65.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Watson's motion for compassionate release.
I. Background
In May 2019, Watson pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance (Counts 1-3), one count of felon in possession of a firearm (Count 4), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 5). In June 2019, this Court sentenced Watson to 130 months imprisonment for Counts 1-4, and 60 months' imprisonment for Count 5. In addition, the Court sentenced Watson to nine years supervised release.
Docs. 29, 58, 65.
Doc. 42.
II. Discussion
On September 1, 2020, Watson moved for compassionate release. Watson seeks a sentence reduction due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Watson asserts the Court mistakenly designated him a career criminal offender. He argues that if the Court had considered the proper Sentencing Guideline range—without the career offender enhancement—he would have received a lesser sentence.
Doc. 58.
Doc. 59.
The Government opposes. It contends that Watson does not have health conditions associated with serious illness risk associate with COVID-19. Further, the Government argues that the § 3553 factors do not support early release.
Doc. 65.
A. Exhaustion
The Court may modify a defendant's sentence upon a motion from the defendant if the defendant filed the motion thirty or more days after the defendant sent a compassionate release request to their warden.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v . Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 834-35 (6th Cir. 2020).
On April 8, 2020, Watson asked the FCI McKean warden for a sentence reduction. On July 6, 2020, Watson asked again. Because Watson filed his motion with the Court more than thirty days after he sent his requests to the warden, Watson satisfies the statutory exhaustion requirement.
Docs. 59-1, 59-2.
Docs. 59-3, 59-4.
B. Eligibility
Generally, to grant compassionate release, a court must: (1) "find that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant [a sentence] reduction," (2) "ensure that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission," and (3) "consider[ ] all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)."
"[I]n the absence of an applicable policy statement for inmate-filed compassionate-release motions, district courts have discretion to define 'extraordinary and compelling' on their own initiative." U .S. v. Elias, — F.3d —, No. 20-3654, 2021 WL 50169, *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021).
Id. (citing U .S. v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A))) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, there are presently no applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements for inmate-filed compassionate release motions. Therefore, in cases, as here, where an inmate files a motion on their own behalf, the court "may skip step two."
See Elias , 2021 WL 50169 at *2 ("[U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates, and so district courts need not consider it when ruling on those motions."); Jones , 980 F.3d at 1108 (stating that "[t]he Commission's policy statement on compassionate release resides in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13" but explaining that "§ 1B1.13 does not 'appl[y]' to cases where an imprisoned person files a motion for compassionate release.").
Jones , 980 F.3d at 1111.
Watson has not established that any extraordinary and compelling reasons necessitate compassionate release.
Watson's COIVD-19 argument is unpersuasive. The presence of COVID-19 alone does not warrant a sentence reduction. And Watson has not shown that he has a medical condition that increases his risk for serious illness if he contracts COVID-19.
Watson concedes this point. Doc 66 at 7.
In Watson's request to the FCI McKean warden, he states that he has an autoimmune condition. See Doc. 59-1. He also references an autoimmune condition in his reply brief. Watson's medical records do not support this claim. See Doc. 65-5.
Watson's career criminal offender argument is similarly unavailing. Watson states that the Court erroneously sentenced him as a career criminal offender, and, therefore, relied on the wrong Sentencing Guideline range. However, the Court sentenced Watson well below the Guideline range he argues was incorrect. Indeed, Watson states his Guideline range without the career-offender enhancement would be 110 to 137 months. And the Court sentenced Watson to 130 months. Even if the Court had not designated Watson a career offender, the Court is not persuaded that it would have imposed a different sentence.
Doc. 59.
Id.
This does not include the mandatory 60-month sentence for Count 5. --------
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Watson's request for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 15, 2021
s/ James S . Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE