UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-20814 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

STEVEN SMITH, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [ECF No. 53] 

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Steven Smith’s renewed 

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The 

motion is fully briefed. 

Smith asks the Court to grant him a compassionate release because 

his medical conditions (diabetes and obesity) make him particularly 

vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic – especially considering that his new 

prison facility, FCI Fort Dix, is experiencing an outbreak of infections and 

has dormitory-style housing which makes social distancing impossible. 

The number of COVID cases at Fort Dix went from three inmate cases on 

October 5th to 30 inmate and 8 staff cases on October 26th to 238 inmate 

and 18 staff cases on both November 17th as well as November 20th. 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.997 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 8
2 

That the number of cases remained the same from November 17 to 

November 20 demonstrates a likelihood of delayed reporting or lack of 

testing. 

In an August 26, 2020 Order, the Court denied Smith’s original 

motion for compassionate release. Although Smith exhausted his 

administrative remedies and demonstrated that his underlying medical 

conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

compassionate release, the Court found Smith’s release plan insufficient to 

protect the community because it involved returning to the same 

environment in which he committed his offense. The Court also found that 

releasing Smith would create a sentence disparity between him and his son 

and would be unfair to his son, who has served longer in prison for a less 

egregious and related offense. 

The Court incorporates all relevant background information from the 

August 26 Order here and includes below only new information relevant to 

Smith’s renewed motion. 

For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Smith’s motion. 

II. DISCUSSION

 The compassionate release statute allows the Court to modify a 

defendant’s term of imprisonment if: (1) he fully exhausts all administrative 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.998 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 8
3 

remedies; (2) he shows both “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction [or release]” and that the reduction or release is 

consistent with” the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements; (3) he is 

not a danger to any other person or the community; and (4) the factors in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support the reduction or release to the extent they are 

applicable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); United States Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1; United States v. Austin, 

No. 15-20609, 2020 WL 2507622, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020). 

 Smith exhausted his administrative remedies, and it is undisputed 

that Smith’s diabetes and obesity constitute extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for his release. The only matters at issue are whether Smith is a 

danger to the community and whether the § 3553(a) factors support 

Smith’s release. 

A. Under His New Release Plan, Smith is Not a Danger to the 

Community 

 Section 1B1.13(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines only permits 

compassionate release if “the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any 

other person or to the community.” USSG § 1B1.13(2); Austin, 2020 WL 

2507622, at *1. An evaluation of dangerousness in this context requires a 

comprehensive view of community safety – “a broader construction than 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.999 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 8
4 

the mere danger of physical violence.” United States v. Cook, 880 F.2d 

1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 1989). 

 In his original motion, Smith proposed returning to the same 

environment in which he committed his offense – where he would live with 

his wife and teenage son. The Court found that that release plan did not 

adequately protect the community from a subsequent child pornography 

offense because: (1) the Probation Department would not be able to 

implement or monitor internet and device restrictions; (2) his wife never 

prevented Smith from downloading child pornography when he lived with 

her before; (3) Smith has not completed a rehabilitative sex offender 

program; and (4) considering that Smith influenced his now-adult son to 

view child pornography when he was a teenager, a release to his home 

where his 16-year-old son resides opens the door to the same corrupting 

danger to his teenager. 

 Smith offers an alternative release plan in his renewed motion. He 

proposes to live with his mother, Theresa Smith, and her adult daughter in 

a three-bedroom home in Wolverine Lake, Michigan. The house is near 

Smith’s family home and his church, enabling his wife and teenage son – 

as well as the members of his church community – to provide support and 

hold him accountable. 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.1000 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 8
5 

The Court finds that Smith’s new release plan alleviates the concerns 

it had with Smith’s previous plan. Smith will not return to the same 

environment in which he committed his offense, and since he will not live 

with his 16-year-old son, it is less likely he will be a corrupting influence. 

With respect to the Probation Department’s supervision, the Court 

acknowledges that it previously was misinformed about the ability of the 

Probation Department to implement internet and device monitoring 

restrictions. Probation is able to implement and supervise the monitoring 

software. 

Finally, Smith has not completed a rehabilitative sex offender 

program. However, no such program is even available at Fort Dix, and 

Smith said he will participate in a non-residential program as part of the 

terms of his release. Since Fort Dix does not offer a sex offender treatment 

program, Smith will “better be able to access treatment outside of BOP 

custody.” See United States v. Weikel, No. 16-cr-20659, ECF No. 84, 

PageID.1198 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2020). 

Moreover, Smith complied with all conditions of pretrial release. The 

BOP assessed that he presented a minimum risk of recidivism. And, Smith 

has been a model prisoner. In light of this, and considering the alternative 

release plan and the available conditions of supervised release, the Court 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.1001 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 8
6 

believes that Smith will comply with the conditions of supervised release 

and not be a danger to the community. 

B. The § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors Support Smith’s Release 

When the Court denied Smith’s original motion, it noted that Smith 

had not yet served half of his sentence. Now, based on his expected 

release date of May 10, 2025, Smith has served over half of his sentence; 

he has served approximately 57 months, and he has just over 53 months 

remaining until his expected release date. The Court finds that this period 

of incarceration has sufficiently deterred future criminal conduct, afforded 

just punishment, and promoted respect for the law – especially considering 

that he has been forced to endure conditions placing him at greater risk to 

contract COVID-19 and knowing that if he violates the conditions of his 

release or commits another offense, he will return to prison and face 

increased COVID-19 exposure. 

Moreover, while the Court found releasing Smith would create a 

sentence disparity between him and his son and would be unfair to his son, 

this condition no longer weighs against Smith’s release. Smith’s son 

supports his father’s release. Additionally, § 3553(a)(6) warns courts to 

avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. A sentence disparity here is not 

unwarranted because, as his son acknowledges, Smith’s medical 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.1002 Filed 11/20/20 Page 6 of 8
7 

conditions make him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and increase his 

risk for severe illness or death if he contracts the virus. Smith’s son, on the 

other hand, does not have any underlying medical conditions that make 

him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. 

The § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of Smith’s release. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Smith’s renewed motion 

for compassionate release [ECF No. 53]. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), the Court “may reduce [Smith’s] 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).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

The Court REDUCES Smith’s term of imprisonment to TIME 

SERVED. 

 The Court orders that Smith be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED to the 

Eastern District of Michigan to begin his five-year term of SUPERVISED 

RELEASE, as outlined by the January 12, 2016 Judgment [ECF No. 30]. 

In addition to the conditions of supervised release set forth in the Judgment 

[ECF No. 30, PageID.132-33], the Court imposes the following additional 

conditions: 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.1003 Filed 11/20/20 Page 7 of 8
8 

 1. Upon release from custody, Smith must immediately report to his 

mother’s home and quarantine there for 14 days; 

2. Smith must comply with any applicable federal, state or local stayat-home orders, social distancing guidelines, or other public health 

restrictions; and 

3. If Smith uses or has access to any device that has the ability to 

access the internet, he and his family members have a duty to inform the 

Probation Department of his use and/or access to that device, and that 

device must be made subject to the computer/Internet Monitoring Program 

administered by the Probation Department. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: November 20, 2020 

Case 2:14-cr-20814-VAR-EAS ECF No. 59, PageID.1004 Filed 11/20/20 Page 8 of 8