This Court does not have the statutory authority to modify a defendant's current sentence to home confinement. See United States v. Townsend, 631 Fed.Appx. 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the authority to determine the place of a prisoner's confinement is delegated solely to the Bureau of Prisons); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1991) (same); United States v. Coates, No. 13-cr-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *11 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020). However, courts may reduce a defendant's current sentence to time served and impose a new term of supervised release and/or home confinement.
); Johnson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40225, at *12-13; United States v. Coates, No.13-20303, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241540, at *27 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020) (“[C]ourts have concluded that taking care of an ailing parent does not present an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant release.”)
ECF 721, PgID 4050. Courts in the Eastern District of Michigan routinely deny compassionate release motions when the extraordinary and compelling reason put forth by a defendant is the need to care for an elderly parent. See United States v. Newton, 478 F.Supp.3d 591, 595 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (Drain, J.) ("[T]he fact that Defendant's mother suffers from medical hardships, while unfortunate, does not in and of itself create a compelling reason to release Defendant."); United States v. Johnson, No. 11-20493, 2021 WL 822495, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2021) (Goldsmith, J.) ("However, 'simply having an elderly parent who may need assistance, and may be susceptible to COVID-19, is not, by itself, exceptional and does not justify early release.'") (quoting and citing United States v. Benson, No. 03-80139, 2021 WL 527280, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2021) (Cleland, J.)); see also United States v. Coates, No.13-cr-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020) (Dawkins Davis, J.) ("[C]ourts have concluded that taking care of an ailing parent does not present an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant release.") (collecting cases and granting motion on other grounds). While the Court is sympathetic toward the health condition of Defendant's parent, the Court will adopt the persuasive reasoning of other courts in the Eastern District of Michigan.
This Court does not have the statutory authority to modify a defendant's current sentence to home confinement. See United States v. Townsend, 631 Fed.Appx. 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the authority to determine the place of a prisoner's confinement is delegated solely to the Bureau of Prisons); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1991) (same); United States v. Coates, No. 13-cr-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *11 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020). However, courts may reduce a defendant's current sentence to time served and impose a new term of supervised release and/or home confinement.
However, multiple courts within this circuit, including this Court, have determined that it is not extraordinary to have a sick parent who may need assistance. See, e.g., United States v. Cole, No. 18-20237, 2021 WL 194194, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2021); United States v. Coates, No. 13-cr-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, *9 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020) (“[C]ourts have concluded that taking care of an ailing parent does not present an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant release.”) (collecting cases); United States v. Ingram, No. 2:14-cr-40, 2019 WL 3162305, *2 (S.D. Ohio, July 16, 2019) (“Many, if not all inmates, have aging and sick parents. Such circumstance is not extraordinary.”).
Even before COVID-19 mutations started appearing, the evidence was unclear on the risks of reinfection. See United States v. Coates, No. 13-CR-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020) (collecting studies that showed growing risks of COVID reinfection, sometimes with more severe symptoms than original infection); United States v. Keys, No. 2:16-CR-00234-KJM, 2020 WL 6700412, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020); Marilynn Marchione, Coronavirus Variants: Experts Fear Mutations Could Mean COVID-19 Reinfections, FOX 5 Atlanta (Feb. 8, 2021), https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/coronavirus-variants-experts-fear-mutations-could-mean-covid-19-reinfections (describing a study that found that 10% of Marine recruits with past COVID infections appeared to suffer COVID reinfection). And the rapid transmission of COVID-19 mutations throughout the United States and the world has only heightened the risk of reinfection.
Further, the fact that he previously contracted COVID and recovered does not automatically preclude compassionate release in and of itself. See United States v. Sallee, 6:18-cr-27-CHB-HAI (E.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2021), ECF No. 62, at 14 (order granting compassionate release); United States v. Coates, No. 13-CR-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020); United States v. Keys, No. 2:16-CR-00234-KJM, 2020 WL 6700412, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020). The Court has also reviewed the BOP website that tracks COVID statistics at each BOP facility.
While courts in this district previously considered the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as part of its analysis of motions for compassionate release, the recent precedent set in Jones established that § 1B1.13 no longer governs motions initiated by imprisoned persons. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1108 (Moore, J.); see also, e.g., United States v. Coates, 2020 WL 7640058, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020). As such, the Sixth Circuit held that "[i]n cases where incarcerated persons file motions for compassionate release," as is the case here, "federal judges may skip step two of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry" and proceed directly from step one to step three.
Courts have agreed that these conditions can support a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting compassionate release. See United States v. Manzano, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 7223301, at *3-4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2020) (collecting cases and noting diabetes and hypertension support a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons); United States v. Coates, Case No. 13-cr-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020) (collecting cases and finding hypertension combined with other comorbidities "weighs in favor of granting compassionate release"); United States v. Zukerman, 451 F. Supp. 3d 329, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (noting that diabetes and hypertension "satisfy [the extraordinary and compelling] requirement"); United States v. Lau, CR. NO. 13-00516 JMS, 2020 WL 7753079, at *3 (D. Haw. Dec. 29, 2020) (noting that type 2 diabetes supported finding extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release); United States v. Crawford, No. 2:18-cr-00075-3, 2020 WL 3869480, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2020) (noting that diabetes and high blood pressure supported granting compassionate release); United States v. Jackson, No. 5:02-cr-30020, 2020 WL 2735724, at *3 (W.D. Va. May 26, 2020) (noting type 2 diabetes and obesity, among other comorbidities and "when paired with the COVID-19 pandemic," created extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release); cf. United States v. Salvagno, 456 F. S