1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT AMSTER, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:14-cr-20599-03 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [712] 

Defendant Scott Amster, acting pro se, moved for compassionate release under 

the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). ECF 712. Defendant argued the Court should 

reduce his sentence because several of his medical problems place him at an increased 

risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 and make "infection inevitable." Id. at 

3974. Defendant specifically asserted he suffers from hypertension, diabetes, obesity, 

atrial fibrillation, GERD, high cholesterol, and respiratory infections. Id. at 3968. 

 The Government responded that Defendant's COVID-19 fears of infection do 

not warrant a sentence reduction as an "extraordinary or compelling circumstance" 

under the First Step Act. ECF 714, PgID 3998. After all, Defendant is fully vaccinated 

against COVID-19. ECF 714-1, PgID 4019. And on that basis, the Court will deny the 

compassionate release motion. 

Under the First Step Act's compassionate release provision, the Court may 

modify Defendant's sentence only if: (1) he has exhausted all administrative 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 718, PageID.4031 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 4
 2

remedies, or (2) thirty days have passed since the warden received Defendant's 

request for the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on his behalf. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The exhaustion condition is "mandatory." United States v. Alam, 960 

F.3d 831, 833–34 (6th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 

Because Defendant has exhausted his request for compassionate release based on his 

health, ECF 691, PgID 3861, he must satisfy "three substantive requirements" for 

the Court to grant compassionate release. United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 

1004 (6th Cir. 2020). 

First, the Court must "find[] that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction." Id. at 1003 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Second, the Court 

must "find that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements 

issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. at 1005 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

(alterations omitted)); but see United States v. Hampton, 985 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 

2021) (explaining that district courts "may now 'skip step two'" because there is no 

applicable policy statement) (quoting United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th 

Cir. 2020)). And third, the Court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors. Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1005 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 

For the first requirement, Defendant must show that "extraordinary and 

compelling reasons" warrant a reduction in sentence. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). "[D]istrict 

courts have discretion to define 'extraordinary and compelling' on their own 

initiative." United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519–20 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Jones, 

980 F.3d at 1111; Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1007). 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 718, PageID.4032 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 4
 3

 "Several cases in the Eastern District of Michigan have adopted textual 

analyses to determine what reasons are 'extraordinary and compelling.'" United 

States v. Powell, No. 2:12-cr-20052-2, 2021 WL 613233, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 

2021) (Murphy, J.) (collecting cases). An "extraordinary and compelling reason" for 

compassionate release is one that is "beyond what is common, and the forcefulness of 

the evidence tends to convince the Court to release the inmate." Id. (internal 

quotation marks and quotations omitted). "Put another way, an extraordinary and 

compelling reason is one that is beyond what is usual, customary, regular, or common, 

and is so great that irreparable harm or injustice would result if the relief is not 

granted." Id. (cleaned up). 

 But Defendant's claim about health complications from COVID-19 is not 

extraordinary and compelling. Defendant is fully vaccinated against the COVID-19 

virus because he has received both Moderna vaccine shots. ECF 714-1, PgID 4019. 

The Moderna vaccine is "exceptionally safe and effective, preventing 94.1% of 

infections in clinical trials." United States v. Cheatham, No. 2:17-CR-20053-1, 2021 

WL 1731712, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2021) (Murphy, J.) (collecting sources on the 

effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines). Because Defendant is fully vaccinated against 

COVID-19, "his susceptibility to the disease is [not] 'extraordinary and compelling' 

for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A)." United States v. Smith, No. 17-cr-20753, 2021 WL 

364636, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2021). "Indeed, Courts in the Eastern District of 

Michigan routinely refuse to find that a fully vaccinated prisoner has an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for release because of their fear of contracting 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 718, PageID.4033 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 4
 4

COVID-19." United States v. Collier, 15-cr-20774-1, 2021 WL 1560079, at *2 (E.D. 

Mich. Apr. 21, 2021) (Murphy, J.) (collecting cases). 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for compassionate 

release [712] is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 16, 2021 

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

and/or counsel of record on June 16, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/ David P. Parker 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 718, PageID.4034 Filed 06/16/21 Page 4 of 4