1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAYNE SCOTT SIMPSON, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:14-cr-20599-12 

Case No. 2:18-cr-20638-01 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582 [14-20599, ECF 676; 18-20638, ECF 18] 

In 2015, Defendant Wayne Scott Simson pleaded guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, for his 

involvement in an international fraudulent telemarketing ring centered in Detroit, 

Michigan. 14-20599, ECF 171. The Court permitted him to go to Florida on bond 

pending his sentencing hearing. 14-20599, ECF 81, PgID 356. While on bond in 

Florida, Defendant participated in a different fraudulent telemarketing ring and, in 

2018, pleaded guilty to another count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. 18-20638, ECF 8. He was sentenced to a combined 

sentence of 63 months' imprisonment on both counts. See 14-20599, ECF 654; 18-

20638, ECF 17. 

On May 11, 2020, Defendant filed, on both dockets, identical motions for a 

reduction of his sentences pursuant to the First Step Act's compassionate release 

provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3582. 14-20599, ECF 676; 18-20638, ECF 18. Defendant 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 685, PageID.3827 Filed 06/25/20 Page 1 of 5
 2

represented that he is particularly susceptible to COVID-19 because his immune 

system is weakened from various surgeries he has had over the last 20 years. 14-

20599, ECF 676, PgID 3727; 18-20638, ECF 18, PgID 88. The Government opposed 

Defendant's request. 14-20599, ECF 681; 18-20638, ECF 19. 

For compassionate release, Defendant must demonstrate that "extraordinary 

and compelling reasons" exist to warrant a reduction in sentence. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides some 

guidance about what constitutes "extraordinary and compelling reasons." U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13. Those reasons are classified in four categories: (1) Defendant's medical 

condition; (2) Defendant's age; (3) family circumstances; and (4) additional reasons 

"other than, or in combination with" the first three categories. Id. at cmt. n.1. 

Here, Defendant has not demonstrated that extraordinary and compelling 

reasons exist to warrant his release. Defendant is 49 years old and argued that his 

various past surgeries have caused him to have a weakened immune system. 14-

20599, ECF 676, PgID 3727; 18-20638, ECF 18, PgID 88. But his medical records did 

not show any signs of a weakened immune system and indicated that he has no 

chronic underlying medical conditions. 14-20599, ECF 681-4; 18-20638, ECF 19-4. 

Defendant is not categorized as high risk. See Groups at Higher Risk from Severe 

Illness, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/ 

groups-at-higher-risk.html. 

And even if Defendant's immune system is weakened, that alone is insufficient 

to warrant early release under the compassionate release standard. Defendant is 16 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 685, PageID.3828 Filed 06/25/20 Page 2 of 5
 3

years younger than the CDC's classification of adults who are at a higher risk of 

COVID-19 complications. Compassionate release is proper "only upon a finding of 

numerous and severe medical conditions that place [Defendant] at a significantly 

higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19." United States v. Alzand, No. 18-cr20703, 2020 WL 2781824, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2020) (collecting cases). The 

Court will therefore deny the motion. 

Defendant also seemingly requested that the Court order that he be placed on 

home confinement for the remainder of his sentence. 14-20599, ECF 676, PgID 3728; 

18-20638, ECF 18, PgID 89. But following judgment, the specifics relating to how 

Defendant serves his sentence is out of the Court's jurisdiction and left to the Bureau 

of Prisons ("BOP"). The authority to place a prisoner on home confinement is squarely 

allocated to the BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). And although the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 

and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") "lengthen[s] the maximum amount of time 

for which [the BOP] is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement" under 

§ 3624(c)(2), it does not alter who has the authority to make that determination. 

CARES Act § 12003(b)(2) (enacted Mar. 27, 2020). Defendant's request is therefore 

not properly before the Court. 

The BOP is taking steps to "assess[] its entire prison 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." See 14-20599, ECF 681, PgID 

3750; 18-20638, ECF 19, PgID 104. And as the entity that has seen its inmates' 

behavior during their confinement firsthand and that is present in the prisons to see 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 685, PageID.3829 Filed 06/25/20 Page 3 of 5
 4

how the COVID-19 pandemic is progressing and affecting each facility on a day-today basis, the BOP is better situated to make those determinations. 

Furthermore, Defendant is not a proper candidate for home confinement. The 

CARES Act does not provide guidance for determining who may be placed on home 

confinement, but the Attorney General issued a memorandum that outlined factors 

to consider, including the "age and vulnerability of the inmate to COVID-19," whether 

home confinement would increase or decrease the inmate's risk of contracting 

COVID-19, and public safety. Memorandum from William Barr, Attorney Gen., U.S. 

Dep't of Justice, on Prioritization of Home Confinement as Appropriate in Response 

to COVID-19 Pandemic (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/ 

pdfs/20200405_covid-19_home_confinement.pdf. 

Here, as mentioned above, Defendant is only 49 years and has no medical 

conditions that place him at high risk. And Defendant is vulnerable to exposure to 

COVID-19 both inside and outside prison—he may even be safer within FTC 

Oklahoma City than under home confinement in Florida, a state still facing 

significant community spread of the virus. The BOP has implemented a series of 

actions to combat exposure to and the spread of COVID-19, including prohibiting 

outside visitors into the facility, suspending inmate movement, screening inmates 

and staff, and providing additional staff training. See BOP Implementing Modified 

Operations, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ 

covid19_status.jsp. Finally, Defendant's criminal history and prison disciplinary 

record indicate that he poses a danger to the community if released prior to serving 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 685, PageID.3830 Filed 06/25/20 Page 4 of 5
 5

his entire sentence. The factors therefore weigh against permitting Defendant to 

serve the remainder of his sentence on home confinement. 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motions for 

modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 [14-20599, ECF 676; 18-20638, 

ECF 18] are DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 25, 2020 

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

and/or counsel of record on June 25, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/ David P. Parker 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 685, PageID.3831 Filed 06/25/20 Page 5 of 5