United States v. Mills

475 F.Supp.3d 712

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Thomas Rodell-Harold MILLS, Defendant (1).

Case No. 13-cr-20487

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed July 31, 2020

Amanda Jawad, Julie A. Beck, Sara D. Woodward, United States Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [42]

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 5, 2018 Defendant Thomas Rodell-Harold Mills ("Defendant") was notified to appear for a supervised release violation hearing. ECF No. 35. This Court sentenced Defendant to serve 12 months of imprisonment, which was to run consecutive to the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts’ sentence, for violating three conditions of his supervised release. ECF No. 76.

Presently before the Court is Defendant's letter seeking relief due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, ECF No. 42, which the Court construed as a Motion for Compassionate Release. See ECF No. 43. Following this Court's Order on June 19, 2020, Defendant's counsel submitted a supplemental brief. ECF No. 46. The Government filed a Response on July 15, 2020.

ECF No. 49. Defendant filed his Reply on July 22, 2020. ECF No. 50. On July 24, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs. ECF No. 51. The parties timely filed their briefs. See ECF Nos. 52, 53.

A hearing on Defendant's Motion was held on July 28, 2020. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion [#42] and ORDERS Defendant's sentence of imprisonment for his supervised release violation is reduced to time served.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On August 15, 2013, Defendant plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). ECF No. 15. On December 13, 2013, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of 42 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. ECF No. 27. Thereafter, the Court found that Defendant violated the terms of his supervised release and sentenced him to a term of 12 months imprisonment to run consecutive to the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts’ case, United States v. Thomas Rodell-Harold Mills , 17-cr-20698. Specifically, this Court determined that Defendant violated three conditions of his supervised release: (1) that he shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; (2) that he shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon; and (3) that he comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. ECF No. 39.

Defendant is currently serving a 48-month aggregated sentence. ECF No. 52, PageID.565. This sentence includes Judge Roberts’ 36-month sentence and this Court's 12-month sentence.¹ Id. According to the Government, Defendant began serving Judge Roberts’ sentence on June 21, 2018. ECF No. 53, PageID.571. Defendant earned 200 days of credit from pretrial detention and 216 days of good-time credit. Id. These days cumulatively account for approximately 22 months. Id. Accordingly, Defendant satisfied Judge Roberts’ sentence and began serving his sentence in the instant case on April 20, 2020. ECF No. 49, PageID.510. As of May 6, 2020, Defendant served 31 months and 5 days in BOP custody, which amounts to 65% of the "full term" and 76.3% of the "statutory term." ECF No. 52, PageID.565.

Defendant now moves this Court for an order reducing his sentence to time served and releasing him from prison due to the threat of COVID-19. ECF No. 46. Defendant is thirty-eight years old. ECF No. 49, PageID.513. The BOP anticipates Defendant's release on February 25, 2021. ECF No. 46, PageID.156. According to Defendant, he is eligible for home detention on October 3, 2020. Id. At the hearing, Defense counsel explained that Defendant is scheduled to be transferred to a residential reentry center ("RRC") on September 1, 2020.

In his instant Motion, Defendant seeks early release from his term of imprisonment by arguing that he has served 65% of his aggregate sentence and that he is at an increased risk of severe complications from COVID-19. He alleges that he is particularly vulnerable due to his longstanding asthma ; high blood pressure ; body mass index ("BMI"); and his race. Id. at PageID.159. Defendant asks for a judicial recommendation for home confinement under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2), as extended by the CARES Act § 12003(b)(2), in the alternative. Id. at PageID.156.

B. FCI Ray Brook

Defendant is currently serving his sentence at FCI Ray Brook in Ray Brook, New York. The BOP website does not list FCI Ray Brook as one of its facilities with active COVID-19 cases, and the Government emphasizes that "only one inmate" at the time of its writing tested positive.² ECF No. 49, PageID.511. FCI Ray Brook has had twelve positive cases amongst the prison population and ten positive cases amongst staff. See BOP: COVID-19 Update , https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated July 29, 2020). In its initial reporting of the pandemic, The Appeal highlighted FCI Ray Brook's slow response to the spread of coronavirus among correctional officers at the facility, and as a consequence, the outbreak reached its prison population. See Harry August & Alex Garnick, ‘The Situation Here is Dire’: How an Upstate New York Prison Failed to Contain a COVID-19 Outbreak , The Appeal (Apr. 16, 2020), https://theappeal.org/coronavirus-upstate-new-york-prison-failed-to-contain-outbreak/.

At least three courts in this District have denoted that a prison's report of zero confirmed cases "is more likely the result of a lack of testing than a lack of the virus’ presence in the prison." United States v. Gardner , No. 14-cr-20735-001, 2020 WL 4200979, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2020) ; see also Segars v. United States , No. 16-20222-3, 2020 WL 3172734, at *3 (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2020) ; United States v. Agomuoh , No. 16-20196, 461 F.Supp.3d 626, 629-30, 635-36 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020). According to the BOP's website, there are 565 incarcerated individuals at FCI Ray Brook. FCI Ray Brook , https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/rbk/ (last visited July 29, 2020). FCI Ray Brook has only conducted 86 tests. BOP: COVID-19 Update , https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated July 29, 2020). The Court takes notice that this equates to roughly a 15% testing rate.

III. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) governs this Court's authority to consider motions for compassionate release. As amended by the First Step Act of 2018, the relevant statutory language provides that a court may grant compassionate release under the following circumstances:

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, a court must address two key questions. The first is whether a defendant has exhausted all administrative remedies with the BOP. The second is whether, after considering "extraordinary and compelling reasons," as well as the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), there are sufficient grounds to warrant a sentence reduction.

Moreover, a sentence reduction must be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 is the "applicable policy statement" which this Court must comply with. This section explains that a defendant must "not [be] a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community" under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Further, a defendant must fit within at least one of four categories of "extraordinary and compelling reasons." Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 provides, in relevant parts, when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist:

(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant

(ii) The defendant is (I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition, (II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or (III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process, that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.

...

(D) Other Reasons – As determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C).

Here, Defendant asserts that his preexistent medical conditions, combined with his continued incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic, "substantially diminish[ his] ability [ ] to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility." ECF No. 46, PageID.159 (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1(A)(ii)) (adjustments in original). Defendant thus argues that these circumstances are "extraordinary and compelling" pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt.1(D). ECF No. 46, PageID.159. Moreover, Defendant asserts that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors favor his release, ECF No. 46, PageID.172, and that he is not a danger to the community, ECF No. 50, PageID.533.

B. Analysis

1. Exhaustion

The First Step Act of 2018 amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to permit defendants to move for...