UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-20023 

 Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith 

vs. 

JERMAINE SHUMATE, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

OPINION & ORDER 

DENYING DEFENDANT JERMAINE SHUMATE’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE 

RELEASE (Dkts. 52, 53, 54) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 This matter is before the Court on Jermaine Shumate’s motion for compassionate release 

(Dkts. 52, 53, 54). Because Shumate has not exhausted his administrative remedies, his motion 

must be denied without prejudice. 

Shumate seeks compassionate release under the First Step Act of 2019, Pub. L. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194. The First Step Act modified the statute concerning the compassionate release of 

federal prisoners, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, such that district courts may entertain motions filed by 

incarcerated defendants seeking to reduce their sentences, United States v. Sapp, No. 14-cr-20520, 

2020 WL 515935, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2020). Generally, federal courts cannot “modify a 

term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a court may reduce a sentence if, after considering the sentencing factors set 

forth in § 3553(a), the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 

reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by 

the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

Before seeking compassionate release from federal courts, however, prisoners must “fully 

exhaust[ ] all administrative rights” or else they must wait for 30 days after the warden’s “receipt 

Case 2:15-cr-20023-MAG-APP ECF No. 62, PageID.268 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

of [their] request.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Sixth Circuit recently held, among other 

things, that there are no statutory exceptions to this exhaustion requirement. United States v. Alam, 

960 F.3d 831, 835-836 (6th Cir. 2020). When faced with an unexhausted motion for 

compassionate release, district courts must dismiss the motion without prejudice. See id. at 836 

(“If (rather than dismissing) we sat on untimely compassionate release motions until the 30-day 

window ran its course, we could end up reviewing stale motions.”). 

Shumate has not fully exhausted his remedies. Shumate filed three letters in June 2020 

seeking compassionate release. The Government responded to his motions arguing that he had 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Resp. at 12-14. Through counsel, Shumate filed a 

reply brief stating that the warden denied his request for compassionate release on September 21, 

2020. Reply at 3 (Dkt. 61). Shumate does not say when he submitted that request. The 

Government raised exhaustion as a defense. Shumate has not provided any evidence that he fully 

exhausted his remedies before filing his motions for compassionate release. Therefore, in light of 

the Sixth Circuit’s clear instruction exhaustion, Shumate’s motions (Dkts. 52, 53, 54) must be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 26, 2020 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any 

unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail 

addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 26, 2020. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:15-cr-20023-MAG-APP ECF No. 62, PageID.269 Filed 10/26/20 Page 2 of 2