1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20383 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

SYLVESTER BOSTON, JR. (D-2), 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [423] 

 

The Court entered an order denying Defendant’s motion for compassionate 

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) on November 5, 2020. (ECF No. 418.) On 

December 28, 2020, Defendant filed the motion before the Court seeking 

reconsideration of that order.1 (ECF No. 423.) And on February 1, 2021, Defendant 

filed a “motion for appeal,” which was construed and docketed as a notice of appeal to 

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 424.)

A notice of appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and 

divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the 

appeal.” Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) 

(citation omitted); see also United States v. Carman, 933 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2019). 

Thus, due to the pending appeal, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant 

Defendant’s request for compassionate release at this time. Under Federal Rule of 

1 Defendant was represented by pro bono counsel in his motion for 

compassionate release. He brings this motion for reconsideration pro se. 

Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 429, PageID.3547 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3
2

Criminal Procedure 37(a), however, “[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court 

lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, 

the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either 

that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the 

motion raises a substantial issue.” The Court will therefore consider Defendant’s motion 

to decide which course of action it will take under Rule 37(a). 

The Court first notes that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is untimely. 

See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1) (allowing a party to file a motion for reconsideration within 

fourteen days after a court issues an order to which the party objects). Even if this 

untimeliness may be excused, however, the Court would not reconsider its denial of 

Defendant’s motion for compassionate release. In its order, the Court found that the 

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh against granting Defendant 

compassionate release. See § 3582(c)(1)(A). In particular, the Court noted that 

Defendant’s underlying offense is serious and a sentence reduction would not be 

consistent with the goals of providing just punishment and protection of the public. 

Defendant now states he contracted COVID-19 on November 21, 2020 and is 

still experiencing symptoms, such as breathing problems and fatigue.2 While 

unfortunate, however, this does not tip the weighing of the relevant factors in favor of 

release. As the Court noted in its previous order, Defendant has not established he is in 

the category of individuals that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has 

2 Defendant has not submitted any documentary evidence substantiating this 

claim. 

Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 429, PageID.3548 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3
3

found face an increased risk of severe illness from the virus. And there is no evidence 

before the Court indicating that Defendant is not receiving the medical care he needs. 

Defendant also makes an argument regarding allegedly false testimony 

presented to the grand jury. Defendant did not raise this issue in his original motion for 

compassionate release and thus the Court need not address it now. See Sault Ste. 

Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that parties should not 

use motions for reconsideration “to raise arguments which could, and should, have 

been made before” the ruling issued). And when Defendant made this argument in 

other contexts, the Court considered and rejected it—twice. (See ECF No. 347, PgID 

1738; ECF No. 421, PgID 3500.) Moreover, this issue has no bearing on any of the 

sentencing factors. Defendant improperly repeats his prior attacks on the validity of the 

indictment underlying his conviction here. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 16, 2021 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on February 16, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Lisa Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 429, PageID.3549 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3