1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of American,

Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 14-20425

v.

Honorable Judith E. Levy

D-6 Devin Dantzler,

Defendant.

United States’ Response Opposing

the Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release

Defendant and Latin Count gang member, Devin Dantzler, committed the most 

violent act possible, murdering a rival gang member. The murder was the fatal act 

that was part of a brutal attack. Dantzler agreed to serve 30 years in prison for the 

murder, but now, with more than 20 years remaining on his sentence he seeks early 

release due to Covid-19 concerns. And since he has been in prison, Dantzler was 

caught with a dangerous homemade knife, a crime he was convicted of in the 

Southern District of West Virginia, a troubling fact he failed to acknowledge in his 

motions.

Dantzler is fortunate to have already received his first dose of the Pfizer 

vaccine. He does not have a chronic condition that places him at increased risk for 

severe complications from Covid-19. His exercised induced asthma does not 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3503 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 20
2

qualify. Dantzler’s reasons for release are therefore not “extraordinary.” His 

conviction and gang membership also establish that he is dangerous, he has not 

demonstrated that his release would reduce his risk of contracting Covid-19, and 

the § 3553(a) factors do not support the premature release of a murderer, all 

preventing him from showing a “compelling” justification for release. The Court 

should deny Dantzler’s motion.

Background

Offense

On April 18, 2014, Dantzler killed rival gang member M.A. (Presentence 

Investigation Report (PSR) ¶¶ 25, 27). Danztler and fellow Latin Counts members 

were driving around Detroit “on patrol” looking for rival gang members to attack 

when they saw M.A. (Id. ¶ 27). M.A. had been a target of the Latin Counts threats 

after M.A. made disparaging remarks on social media about a deceased Latin 

Count. (Id. ¶¶ 20-24, 29). Seeking vengeance, Dantzler and his fellow gang 

members piled out of their vehicles and viciously attacked M.A. and his unwitting 

girlfriend, beating M.A. and striking him with a golf club. At the end of the attack 

Dantzler approached M.A.’s car, and when he had a clear shot took aim with his 

gun and fired, killing M.A. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 27). Dantlzer, with no regard for another 

person’s life, callously killed M.A. to gain the respect of his fellow gang members

and attain a higher rank amongst the Latin Counts. (Id. ¶ 17). M.A.’s family was 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3504 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 20
3

devastated and is reminded of their loss daily. (Gov. Sealed Ex. 1: Victim Impact 

Statement June 2017 from M.A.’s mother) 

Dantzler’s killing of M.A. was not the first time Dantzler exhibited signs of 

violence towards others. In 2012, at the age of 17, Dantzler was charged with 

assault and battery in Lincoln Park for punching a student in the face multiple 

times. The victim believed Dantzler attacked him in retaliation for a prior assault 

of Dantzler’s cousin. The Judge overseeing the matter delayed imposing any 

sentence to allow Dantzler the opportunity to prove he was rehabilitated, but it was 

only two months after that case concluded that Dantzler killed M.A (PSR ¶ 57 ).

Procedure

Dantzler pleaded guilty to RICO Conspiracy (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1962(d)) and agreed to serve 30 years in prison for murdering M.A. (ECF No. 323: 

Plea Agreement, PgID 1391). Dantzler is currently incarcerated at FCI McDowell 

in West Virginia. His projected release date isn’t until 2041, with credit for good 

conduct. (Gov. Ex. 2: Inmate Data). Now, after serving only a fraction of his 

agreed upon 30 years sentence, Dantzler has sought early release. He is 25 years 

old and his only underlying medical condition is exercise induced asthma. 

Nevertheless, Dantzler moved for compassionate release or home confinement in 

the alternative, citing his asthma and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3505 Filed 01/26/21 Page 3 of 20
4

On July 24, 2020, the Warden at FCI McDowell denied Dantzler’s request for 

release. (Ex. 3: Warden’s Denial). On September 8, 2020, Dantzler moved to be 

released to home confinement. (ECF No. 487). This Court interpreted his motion 

as one for compassionate release and dismissed his motion without prejudice for 

failing to provide a description of his physical or medical conditions. (ECF No. 

490: Order, PgID. 2711-12). On December 3, 2020, Dantzler refiled his motion, 

describing his asthma in particular, but failed to provide supporting documentation 

of his condition. (ECF No. 510). On December 17, 2020, this Court appointed 

Dantzler counsel and ordered the government to respond. (ECF Nos. 517, 518). 

Counsel filed a supplemental motion on January 15, 2021. (ECF No. 532). 

Because Dantzler’s filed his motion more than 30 days after his request for a 

reduction in sentence to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) he has exhausted his 

administrative remedies. But Dantzler should not be granted compassionate release 

nor can this Court grant his request for home confinement in the alternative. 

Argument

I. The BOP has responded to Covid-19 by protecting inmates and 

increasing home confinement. 

A. The BOP has takenprecautions to mitigate the risk from Covid19 within its facilities. 

The BOP has taken steps to protect all inmates, including Dantzler from Covid19, guided by a detailed protocolthat is has repeatedly revised to minimize the 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3506 Filed 01/26/21 Page 4 of 20
5

virus’s spread in its facilities. BOP Covid-19 Modified Operations Website. Wilson 

v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 833–34 (6th Cir. 2020). And the BOP has assessed its 

entire population to determine which inmates face the most risk from Covid-19, 

pose the least danger to public safety, and can safely be granted home confinement. 

The BOP also restricted movement within and between its facilities. Id. at 834.

Asymptomatic inmates who arrive at a facility are placed in quarantine for a 

minimum of 14 days, while symptomatic inmates are evaluated and treated while

isolated from other inmates until testing negative for Covid-19 or being cleared by 

medical staff under the CDC’s criteria. Id. Within its facilities, the BOP has 

“modified operations to maximize physical distancing, including staggering meal 

and recreation times, instating grab-and-go meals, and establishing quarantine and 

isolation procedures.” Id. Staff and inmates are issued face masks to wear in public 

areas. See BOP FAQs: Correcting Myths and Misinformation. When visitation is 

permitted at an institution, the visits are non-contact, require masks, and social 

distancing between inmates and visitors is enforced, either via the use of plexiglass 

(or similar barriers), or physical distancing (i.e., six feet apart). Visitors are 

screened for Covid-19 symptoms and their temperature is checked and if sick are 

not allowed to visit. But to ensure that relationships and communication are 

maintained throughout this disruption, the BOP has increased inmates’ telephone 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3507 Filed 01/26/21 Page 5 of 20
6

allowance to 500 minutes per month, and legal visits are accommodated upon 

request. See BOP Modified Operations.

Like all other institutions, penal and otherwise, the BOP has not been able to 

eliminate the risks from Covid-19 completely, despite its best efforts. But the 

BOP’s measures will help federal inmates remain protected from Covid-19 and 

ensure that they receive any required medical care during these difficult times.

B. The BOP is increasing the number of inmates who are granted 

home confinement. 

The BOP has also responded to Covid-19 by increasing the placement of 

federal prisoners in home confinement using recent legislation that temporarily 

permits the BOP to “lengthen the maximum amount of time for which [it] is 

authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement” during the Covid-19 

pandemic. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) 

§ 12003(b)(2), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 516 (Mar. 27, 2020). The 

Attorney General issued two directives, ordering the BOP to use the “various 

statutory authorities to grant home confinement for inmates seeking transfer in 

connection with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.” (03-26-2020 Directive to BOP, 

at 1; accord 04-03-2020 Directive to BOP, at 1). The directives require the BOP to 

identify the inmates most at risk from Covid-19 and “to consider the totality of 

circumstances for each individual inmate” in deciding whether home confinement 

is appropriate. (03-26-2020 Directive to BOP, at 1). 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3508 Filed 01/26/21 Page 6 of 20
7

The BOP’ efforts on this point are not hypothetical. Currently, the BOP has

released more than 7,700 inmates on home confinement. As the Sixth Circuit 

stressed, these efforts show that “[t]he system is working as it should”: “A policy 

problem appeared, and policy solutions emerged.” United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 

831, 836 (6th Cir. 2020). 

This policy solution is also tailored to the realities of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

As the Attorney General’s directives have explained, the BOP is basing its homeconfinement decisions on several factors: 

1.) Each inmate’s age and vulnerability to Covid-19;

2.) Whether home confinement would increase or decrease the 

inmate’s risk of contracting Covid-19; and

3.) Whether the inmate’s release into home confinement would risk 

public safety.

(03-26-2020 Directive to BOP; 04-03-2020 Directive to BOP). These criteria 

account for justifiable concerns about whether inmates “might have no safe place 

to go upon release and [might] return to their criminal activities,” as well as 

“legitimate concerns about public safety.” Wilson, 961 F.3d at 845.

The BOP has focused on the inmates who have the highest risk factors for 

Covid-19 and are least likely to engage in new criminal activity. Dantzler is not 

one of those inmates. This is true not just to protect the public generally, but to 

avoid the risk that a released defendant will bring Covid-19 back into the jail or 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3509 Filed 01/26/21 Page 7 of 20
8

prison system if he violates his terms of release or is caught committing a new 

crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(5); 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)(2). 

The BOP must also balance other important considerations: how likely is an 

inmate to abide by Covid-19-based restrictions on release? Or if an inmate is 

considered for release, the BOP must assess the suitability of his release plan. 

Many inmates—particularly those who, like Dantzler, have been convicted of 

serious offenses and have a disciplinary record in prison – that resulted in another 

conviction – have already proven they are unwilling to abide by society’s most 

basic norms. Dantzler’s three separate filings (two pro se motions and appointed 

counsel’s supplemental motion) all fail to address any proposed release plan. (ECF 

Nos. 487, 510, 532). His PSR from 2017 is no more enlightening. Dantzler did not 

know where he would go or who he might rely on when released, telling the 

Probation officer he wanted to leave Michigan and might move to Kansas. (PSR ¶ 

73). 

The BOP’ssystem-wide resource-allocation decisions are difficult even in 

normal circumstances. That is why Congress tasked the BOP to make them and has 

not subjected the decisions to judicial review. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) 

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of 

imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.”); United 

States v. Patino, 452 F.Supp.3d 705, 712 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (“[A]s a general rule, 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3510 Filed 01/26/21 Page 8 of 20
9

the Court lacks authority to direct the operations of the BOP.”). It is especially true 

now, given the BOP’ssubstantial and ongoing efforts to address the Covid-19 

pandemic. And here, the BOP has already considered and denied Dantzler’s 

request, a decision that should be given deference by this Court. 

C. The BOP is receiving Covid-19 vaccinations to administer to staff and 

inmates. 

Currently, vaccinations are being distributed and Americans are being 

inoculated, including staff and inmates within the BOP. See CDC Covid-19 

Vaccine Tracker. The BOP has already initiated the first doses of the vaccine to 

more than 24,000 staff members and inmates. And Dantzler is fortunate to be one 

of those inmates who has received his first dose of the vaccine at a time when 

many qualifying Americans are desperately trying to obtain that protection, but are 

unable despite their eligibility. Dantzler received his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine

on January 21, 2021. (Gov. Sealed Ex. 4: BOP Vaccination Record). The Pfizer 

vaccine has been shown to be 95% effective at preventing Covid-19 illness and 

provides protection from new, more contagious strains of the virus. See 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/08/pfizer-vaccine-protects-againstnew-covid-variants-study-suggests. Dantzler’s second dose should be administered 

approximately three weeks later on February 11. He should achieve maximum 

immunity within one to two weeks of his second dose. See

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3511 Filed 01/26/21 Page 9 of 20
10

II. The Court should deny Dantzler’s motion for compassionate release.

A. The Court cannot resentence Dantzler to home confinement.

Dantzler’s motion for home confinement or any reduced sentence should be 

denied. A district court has “no inherent authority . . . to modify an otherwise valid 

sentence.” United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 700 (6th Cir. 2009). Rather, 

a district court’s authority to modify a defendant’s sentence is “narrowly 

circumscribed.” United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 753 n.2 (6th Cir. 2008). 

Absent a specific statutory exception, a district court “may not modify a term of 

imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Those statutory 

exceptions are narrow. United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 586 (6th Cir. 2001). 

Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is equally narrow. 

Dantzler’s request for resentencing to home confinement does not fall within any 

of the statutory exceptions. The BOP, not the sentencing court, has the exclusive 

authority to determine a person’s place of incarceration – including home 

confinement. Such a decision “is not reviewable by any court.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3621(b). The CARES Act did not alter this authority. Courts in this district have 

also recognized that under the CARES Act the authority to transfer an inmate to 

home confinement remains solely allocated to the BOP. See United States v. 

Oliver, 17-CR-20489, 2020 WL 2768852 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020) (citing 

cases). Therefore, the Court cannot grant Dantzler’s requested relief to modify his 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3512 Filed 01/26/21 Page 10 of 20
11

sentence and direct the BOP to release him to home confinement. (ECF No. 510: 

Dantzler’s Motion, PgID. 2914).

B. Dantzler has not shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” 

for compassionate release. 

Resolving the merits of a compassionate-release motion involves a “three-step 

inquiry”: a district court must (1) “find that extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant a sentence reduction,” (2) “ensure that such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” and (3) 

“consider all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Elias, ___ 

F.3d ___, No. 20-3654, 2021 WL 50169, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021); 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). In Elias, 2021 WL 50169, at *2, the Sixth Circuit held that USSG 

§ 1B1.13 is not an “applicable” policy statement for defendant-initiated motions 

for compassionate release. The government disagrees with that holding and 

preserves for further review its argument that § 1B1.13 remains binding. But, given 

the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Elias, controlling circuit precedent now forecloses 

that argument before this Court.

Dantzler’s reasons for release are not “extraordinary,” meaning exceptional or 

uncommon. United States v. Shah, No. 16-20457, 2020 WL 1934930, at *2 (E.D. 

Mich. Apr. 22, 2020); United States v. Sapp, No. 14-CR-20520, 2020 WL 515935, 

at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2020). Everyone in our society faces a risk from Covid19 right now. So as the Sixth Circuit has stressed, “generalized fears of contracting 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3513 Filed 01/26/21 Page 11 of 20
12

Covid-19, without more,” do not justify compassionate release. United States v. 

Jackson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32269, at *6 (6th Cir. Oct. 13, 2020); accord

United States v. Bothra, No. 20-1364, 2020 WL 2611545, at *2 (6th Cir. May 21, 

2020); United States v. Ramadan, No. 20-1450, 2020 WL 5758015, at *2 (6th Cir. 

Sept. 22, 2020). But Dantzler’s risk will be nearly eliminated after he receives his 

vaccinations and builds an immune response. 

Dantzler does not have a chronic condition that the CDC has confirmed will 

cause him to face an increased risk of severe illness from Covid-19. The CDC 

maintains a running list of conditions that are known to place someone at a higher 

risk of severe illness. See CDC Risk Factors(as updated) (identifying the 

confirmed medical conditions that increase someone’s risk from Covid-19). 

Dantzler’s records establish that he does not have one of those conditions. Dantzler 

cites his asthma as a basis for his request for release, but the CDC indicates that 

someone with moderate to severe asthma might be at an increased risk of severe 

illness from Covid-19. There is no indication Dantzler’s asthma is anything other 

than mild. While he has filled his prescription for an inhaler more recently, he did 

not use it initially. (Gov. Sealed Ex. 5: BOP Medical Records, p. 3). And when she 

was interviewed by the Probation Department, Dantzler’s mother said his asthma 

was “exercised induced and he only needed [his inhaler] when he is highly active.” 

(PSR ¶ 77). Dantzler’s medical records confirm his asthma is only exercise 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3514 Filed 01/26/21 Page 12 of 20
13

induced. (Gov. Sealed Ex. 5: BOP Medical Records, p. 71). Dantzler’s release 

request is only based on a “generalized fear[] of contracting Covid-19.” Jackson, 

2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32269, at *6.

And this Court has denied other asthmatic defendants release even in light of 

Covid-19. See United States v. Coles, No. 18-CR-20254, 2020 WL 1899562 (E.D. 

Mich. Apr. 17, 2020); United States v. Davis, No. 18-20211, 2020 WL 2764585 

(E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020); United States v. Alzand, No. 18-20703, 2020 WL 

2781824 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2020); United States v. Buford, No. 05-80955, 2020 

WL 4040705 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2020); United States v. Files, No. CR 17-20362, 

2020 WL 4435170 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2020); United States v. Coates, No. 16-

20414, 2020 WL 5035107 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2020); United States v. Wright, 

No. 17-20022, 2020 WL 4734912 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2020); United States v. 

Harris, No. 17-20485, 2020 WL 4788027 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2020); United 

States v. Edwards, No. 15-20564, 2020 WL 4816193 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2020); 

United States v. Taylor, No. 17-20791, 2020 WL 5200956 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 1, 

2020); United States v Anderson, No. 13-20704-02, 2020 WL 6060658 (E.D. 

Mich. Oct. 14, 2020). All of these inmates were denied release before vaccinations 

for Covid-19 were even approved1, whereas this Court will consider Dantzler’s 

 1 On December 11, 2020, the FDA approved Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

for the Pfizer vaccine. 

 On December 18, 2020, the FDA approved EUA for the Moderna vaccine.

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3515 Filed 01/26/21 Page 13 of 20
14

motion the day before he may be scheduled to receive his second vaccination2, 

making his request unpersuasive. 

Because Dantzler is only 25 years old, even without the protection of the 

vaccine, he did not face the same risk from the disease that the elderly do. The 

combination of his exercise induced asthma and age, even when considered 

alongside the Covid-19 pandemic, thus does not rise to the level of an 

“extraordinary” circumstance.

Dantzler’s reasons for release are not “compelling” either. In the pretrial-release 

context, the Sixth Circuit addressed what qualifies as a “compelling” reason for 

release based on Covid-19. United States v. McGowan, No. 20-1617, 2020 WL 

3867515, at *2 (6th Cir. July 8, 2020); Bothra, 2020 WL 2611545, at *2. That 

analysis considers (1) the “original grounds” for the defendant’s incarceration; (2) 

the “specificity” of his “stated Covid-19 concerns”; (3) the extent to which the 

proposed release plan would “mitigate or exacerbate” his risk from Covid-19; and 

(4) the risk from Covid-19 that his release would pose to others. McGowan, 2020 

WL 3867515, at *2. Bothra, who was detained for orchestrating a fraud scheme,

was in his 70s and “had health issues rendering him more vulnerable to contracting 

 2 Doses are meant to be distributed approximately three weeks apart, which would 

be on February 11, 2021. The Court has scheduled a hearing on February 10, 2021.

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3516 Filed 01/26/21 Page 14 of 20
15

[Covid-19].” 2020 WL 2611545, at *2. But Sixth Circuit thus held that his 

circumstances did not present a “compelling” reason for release. Id.

Dantzler’s circumstances are even less compelling. The “original grounds” for 

Dantzler’s incarceration here were the murder of a rival gang member as the fatal 

act that was part of an otherwise brutal attack. McGowan, 2020 WL 3867515, at 

*2. His conviction for that offense, especially when combined with his conviction 

for possessing a dangerous weapon while in prison showsthat Dantzler required a 

sentence of 30 years in prison. And unlike the pretrial defendant in Bothra, 

Dantzler was convicted of his offenses here—not just accused of it. 

Dantzler, with no detailed plan, has also not demonstrated that his release 

would mitigate his risk of spreading Covid-19 to others. See

https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/can-you-still-spread-covid-19-after-youget-vaccinated. Furthermore, even in the face of this pandemic, this Court must 

also weigh whether the sentencing factors undermine release. And in Dantzler’s 

case they do. 

C. The factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) strongly weigh against 

compassionate release. 

Even when an inmate has shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” he is 

still not entitled to compassionate release. Before ordering relief, the Court must 

consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determine that release is 

appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A defendant’s failure to establish that the 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3517 Filed 01/26/21 Page 15 of 20
16

§ 3553(a) factors support relief is an independent basis for denying compassionate 

release. United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1008–09 (6th Cir. 2020); accord

United States v. Austin, 825 F. App’x 324, 325–27 (6th Cir. 2020) (upholding a 

district court’s denial of compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors); 

United States v. Kincaid, 802 F. App’x 187, 188–89 (6th Cir. 2020) (same). An 

assessment of the § 3553(a) factors alone should still disqualify him. 

For starters, Dantzler’s long remaining sentence of more than 20 years weighs 

heavily against release. This Sixth Circuit has repeatedly upheld the denial of 

compassionate release under § 3553(a) when a defendant has a long remaining 

sentence, including in a recent published decision. Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1008; accord 

Kincaid, 802 F. App’x at 188–89; Austin, 825 F. App’x at 326; see also United 

States v. Kincaid, 805 F. App’x 394, 395–96 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[W]e don’t think 

[the defendant] raises a close question.”). This is because the original sentence 

already reflects the district court’s evaluation of “the need to provide just 

punishment, the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, and the need to 

promote respect for the law” under § 3553(a). Kincaid, 802 F. App’x at 188; 

accord Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1008. In Dantzler’s case because he has more than 20 

years left to serve for murdering M.A., he is not someone who raises even a close 

question. 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3518 Filed 01/26/21 Page 16 of 20
17

The plain language of the compassionate-release statute makes the point even 

more directly: it requires that the defendant’s reasons for release “warrant such a 

reduction” in his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). That inquiry depends, at 

least in part, on the length of time remaining on the defendant’s sentence, requiring 

him to justify the magnitude of his requested sentence reduction. Id. So Dantzler

who has more than 20 years to serve must show that his reasons for release are so 

powerful that they “warrant” a “reduction” of that size. Id.

There is no dispute Dantzler’s upbringing was difficult and is something the 

parties and the Court already considered in imposing his 30 years sentence. But it 

is not a basis to reduce his sentence now in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. (ECF 

No. 325: Supplemental Motion, PgID. 3461-62). Whatever his motivation for 

joining, Dantzler was a gang member, part of a group of men who had no respect 

for their community, the police, or anyone that stood in their way. Their focus was 

to ensure that rival gangs and the members of their community feared them. To 

accomplish this, they went on “patrol” and brazenly engaged in violent acts in the 

middle of the day and in public, with total disregard for innocent bystanders. 

Dantzler murdered M.A. who had already suffered a brutal beating over something

as superficial as a social media post. Dantzler’s motion attempts to minimize his 

responsibility by stressing his age (18 years old) at the time he murdered M.A. and 

Dantzler’s vulnerability to pressure from a group of men he made a conscious 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3519 Filed 01/26/21 Page 17 of 20
18

decision to associate with and immerse himself in their violent culture. (Id. at

PgID. 3466-67). But when Dantzler shot M.A. it was outside a neighborhood 

grocery store while customers and their children were in the immediate area. 

Dantzler not only showed a total disregard for M.A.’s life, but also for the life and 

safety of others and placed them in harm’s way by firing his gun. 

And since he has been in prison Dantzler has had multiple violations for 

destruction of property, failing to obey orders and being insolent to staff, and 

weapon possession, which he failed to acknowledge in his filings. (Gov. Sealed 

Ex. 6: Disciplinary Records). Most disturbing was his 2019 conviction in the 

Southern District of West Virginia for his possession of a dangerous homemade

knife with a sharp seven inch blade (pictured below). See SDWV No. 19-00190 

ECF No. 31: Judgment. 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3520 Filed 01/26/21 Page 18 of 20
19

Dantzler’s record casts significant doubt on whether he would abide by release 

conditions if released from custody. But more significantly his participation in 

BOP programs that he touts is far eclipsed by his continued disobedience and 

violence in prison, which proves his release would fail to further protect the public

from such a dangerous individual. (EFC No. 325-3).

III. If the Court were to grant Dantzler’s motion, it should stay the release 

order pending any appeal by the United States.

If the Court were inclined to grant Dantzler’s motion despite the government’s 

arguments above, the government would request that the Court’s release order 

include two provisions. First, the Court should order that he be subjected to a 14-

day quarantine before release. Second, the Court should stay its order pending any 

appeal by the government to the Sixth Circuit. More specifically, the government 

would request that if the government files a notice of appeal before the 14-day 

quarantine ends, the Court’s order would automatically be stayed through the 

completion of any appeal proceedings.

Conclusion 

Dantzler’s motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

MATTHEW SCHNEIDER

United States Attorney 

s/ Andrea Hutting 

Andrea Hutting 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3521 Filed 01/26/21 Page 19 of 20
20

Assistant United States Attorneys

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

313-226-9110 phone

andrea.hutting@usdoj.gov

P68606

Dated: January 26, 2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 26, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing and emailed copies of the Government’s sealed exhibits 

to the following:

James Gerometta

s/Andrea Hutting

Andrea Hutting

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

313-226-9110 phone

andrea.hutting@usdoj.gov

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 535, PageID.3522 Filed 01/26/21 Page 20 of 20