UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Case No.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE) 

v.

Upon motion of տ the defendant տ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a reduction

in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and after considering the applicable factors 

provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is: 

տ GRANTED

տ The defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment of _____________________

is reduced to ____________________________. If this sentence is less than the amount of time 

the defendant already served, the sentence is reduced to a time served; or 

տ Time served.

If the defendant’s sentence is reduced to time served: 

տ This order is stayed for up to fourteen days, for the verification of the 

defendant’s residence and/or establishment of a release plan, to make 

appropriate travel arrangements, and to ensure the defendant’s safe 

release. The defendant shall be released as soon as a residence is verified, 

Kenneth R. Coats

14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH-1

✔

✔

✔ 115 months

time served

✔

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.255 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 9
2

a release plan is established, appropriate travel arrangements are made, 

and it is safe for the defendant to travel. There shall be no delay in 

ensuring travel arrangements are made. If more than fourteen days are 

needed to make appropriate travel arrangements and ensure the 

defendant’s safe release, the parties shall immediately notify the court and 

show cause why the stay should be extended; or

տ There being a verified residence and an appropriate release plan in place, 

this order is stayed for up to fourteen days to make appropriate travel 

arrangements and to ensure the defendant’s safe release. The defendant 

shall be released as soon as appropriate travel arrangements are made and 

it is safe for the defendant to travel. There shall be no delay in ensuring 

travel arrangements are made. If more than fourteen days are needed to 

make appropriate travel arrangements and ensure the defendant’s safe 

release, then the parties shall immediately notify the court and show cause 

why the stay should be extended. 

տ The defendant must provide the complete address where the defendant will reside 

upon release to the probation office in the district where they will be released because it 

was not included in the motion for sentence reduction.

տ Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the defendant is ordered to serve a “special term” of 

տ probation or տ supervised release of ________ months (not to exceed the unserved 

portion of the original term of imprisonment). 

տ The defendant’s previously imposed conditions of supervised release apply to 

the “special term” of supervision; or 

✔

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.256 Filed 02/26/21 Page 2 of 9
3

տ The conditions of the “special term” of supervision are as follows:

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

տ The defendant’s previously imposed conditions of supervised release are unchanged.

տ The defendant’s previously imposed conditions of supervised release are modified as

follows:

տ DEFERRED pending supplemental briefing and/or a hearing. The court DIRECTS the United

States Attorney to file a response on or before _______________________________, along with 

all Bureau of Prisons records (medical, institutional, administrative) relevant to this motion. 

տ DENIED after complete review of the motion on the merits.

տ FACTORS CONSIDERED (Optional) 

✔

✔

See addendum. 

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.257 Filed 02/26/21 Page 3 of 9
4

տ DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the defendant has not exhausted all administrative

remedies as required in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), nor have 30 days lapsed since receipt of the 

defendant’s request by the warden of the defendant’s facility.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

s/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated:

Terrence G. Berg

February 25, 2021

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.258 Filed 02/26/21 Page 4 of 9
In determining whether Mr. Coats is eligible for compassionate 

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the Court must determine (1) whether 

he has exhausted his administrative remedies, (2) whether there are 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” that warrant his release, and (3) 

whether his release would be consistent with the factors set forth in § 

3553(a). See, e.g., United States v. Agomuoh, 461 F. Supp. 3d 626, 629-30 

(E.D. Mich. 2020); United States v. Mitchell, 472 F. Supp. 3d 403, 406 

(E.D. Mich. 2020); United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519-20 (6th Cir. 

2021) (clarifying that the factors in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 are no longer a 

required component of the compassionate release motion analysis for 

motions directly filed by defendants). 

The Government concedes that Mr. Coats has exhausted his 

administrative remedies. ECF No. 35, PageID.240-41. See also ECF No. 

32-1, PageID.214-17. It also concedes that Mr. Coats’s medical conditions 

of obesity and paraplegia qualify as “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” necessary to consider release. ECF No. 35, PageID.241. 

Therefore, the Court need only consider whether “extraordinary and 

compelling” reasons justify release and whether release would be 

consistent with the § 3553(a) factors. 

Mr. Coats suffers from underlying medical conditions that 

exacerbate COVID-19. First, Mr. Coats has a BMI of 33.10, which exceeds 

the threshold for obesity. ECF No. 32, PageID.197. The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has recognized obesity as a risk 

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.259 Filed 02/26/21 Page 5 of 9
factor that places a person at increased risk of severe illness from 

COVID-19. ECF No. 32, PageID.197; see also People with Certain Medical 

Conditions, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, 

https://perma.cc/7EQP-9C4X (last updated Feb. 3, 2021). Additionally, 

Mr. Coats’s condition as a paraplegic puts him at increased risk for 

contracting COVID-19. See ECF No. 32-4, PageID.220. Due to his 

condition, Mr. Coats is “dependent on other people to assist him with his 

daily activities,” therefore making it impossible for him to practice social 

distancing. ECF No. 32, PageID.197. This includes relying on other 

incarcerated individuals to “clean his cell and transport him to the 

medical unit to receive his medications.” ECF No. 32, PageID.198. Given 

these circumstances, the Court gives significant weight to Mr. Coats’s 

medical conditions as a reason for granting release. 

Mr. Coats’s risk is further exacerbated by the number of deaths at 

the facility which he is currently confined in. Mr. Coats is currently 

incarcerated at FCI Butner Medium I, which is part of the FCC Butner—

a complex that contains multiple prisons. At the time Petitioner filed his 

brief, there were 3 inmates and 1 staff member who had tested positive 

for coronavirus at FCI Butner 1. ECF No. 32, PageID.199. Currently, 0 

inmates and 6 staff members have tested positive. See FEDERAL BUREAU 

OF PRISONS, COVID-19 Cases, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. While 

these numbers are relatively low, there have also been 9 deaths of 

inmates at FCI Butner I. Id. Additionally, the overall FCC Butner 

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.260 Filed 02/26/21 Page 6 of 9
complex has 22 active cases among inmates, 20 active cases among staff, 

30 inmate deaths, and 1 staff death. See OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, Facility-Level BOP COVID-19 Trends, 

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ab22fb4c564e4f4b986e257c685

190e8/page/page_0/?views=view_19. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that there are extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for Mr. Coats’s release. 

The next consideration is whether Mr. Coats’s release would be 

consistent with the factors outlined in § 3553(a). The Government’s sole 

opposition to Mr. Coats’s release is based on the factors outlined in 

3553(a), which they assert “weigh strongly against compassionate 

release.” ECF No. 35, PageID.242. First, the Government notes that the 

nature of the offense was “very serious” as it involved the recovery of two 

stun guns, a stolen .38 caliber revolver, and a .25 caliber semi-automatic 

handgun. ECF No. 35, PageID.243. Next, the Government points to Mr. 

Coats’s previous criminal history as evidence weighing against his 

release including charges and convictions for carrying a concealed 

weapon, delivery/manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of 

cocaine, obstructing police, delivery of a controlled substance, and assault 

with a dangerous weapon. ECF No. 35, PageID.244-45. In sum, the 

Government opposes release based on “the danger posed by Coat’s offense 

and his history” and the fact that his previous “record casts significant 

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.261 Filed 02/26/21 Page 7 of 9
doubt on whether he would abide by the release conditions.” ECF No. 35, 

PageID.245. 

There is no question that Mr. Coats was convicted of a serious 

crime. After executing a search warrant at his residence, officers 

recovered two stun guns, a digital scale, and cash inside, as well as two 

firearms from a vehicle in the driveway. Additionally, at the time of the 

offense Mr. Coats was on probation. ECF No. 35, PageID.232. However, 

the firearms in question were located outside in a car—not on 

Defendant’s person—and the offense conduct did not involve using or 

brandishing the firearms. 

Mr. Coats also has a long history of convictions. Most significantly, 

the Court notes Mr. Coats was convicted of assault with a dangerous 

weapon conviction in 2013. The record also shows that Mr. Coats has 

become re-involved in criminal activity while on probation, which 

heightens the Court’s concern that he will comply with conditions of 

release. 

However, the Court also notes that Mr. Coats has committed 

himself to rehabilitation during his period of incarceration. He has taken 

advantage of available training and treatment programs while 

incarcerated. These include a jobs program, a young men’s awareness 

and behavior modification program, and a 500-hour drug program. ECF 

No. 32, PageID.203. His success in rehabilitation is also reflected by his 

minimal disciplinary history in prison as Mr. Coats has only had one 

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.262 Filed 02/26/21 Page 8 of 9
misconduct infraction from over 2 years ago, misusing authorized 

medication, that he claims was related to the chronic pain he experiences 

as a result of his paralysis. ECF No. 32-6, PageID.223. Mr. Coats has 

been incarcerated since August 2014, has served approximately 78 

months of his 115 month sentence (approximately 67 percent of the term) 

and according to the BOP he is set for release on March 30, 2022. See 

Find an Inmate, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited February 10, 2021). 

Considering that Mr. Coats has already served a substantial term of 

incarceration and that he is scheduled to be released in just over a year, 

the Court finds that granting Mr. Coats’s motion for release would not be 

inconsistent with advancing the goals of deterrence and protection of the 

public from further crimes as outlined in §3553(a). 

While the Court acknowledges the seriousness of Mr. Coats’s crime 

and the nature of his previous record, on balance the Court finds after 

considering the relevant § 3553(a) factors, a reduction in his sentence 

would be warranted under the circumstances of this case—most 

saliently, that a significant portion of his sentence has already been 

served and his commitment to rehabilitation has been well 

demonstrated. 

Having considered all of the above factors, the Court finds that 

release is appropriate. Mr. Coats is also ordered to self-quarantine at 

home for 14 days immediately upon his release. 

Case 4:14-cr-20509-TGB-MJH ECF No. 36, PageID.263 Filed 02/26/21 Page 9 of 9