UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jonathan Estrada, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

Case No. 14-cr-20425 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [595] 

 Before the Court is pro se Defendant Jonathan Estrada’s motion for 

reconsideration of this Court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release and/or sentence reduction. (ECF No. 595.) 

Defendant argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Concepcion v. 

United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022) requires that the Court grant his 

motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 595 PageID.3858–3859.) 

Defendant also argues that reconsideration is warranted for the reasons 

he set forth “in his original requests for compassionate release (with the 

exception of the Davis claim, defendant understand[s] clearly that Davis 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 601, PageID.3958 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 6
2 

is inapplicable to his case).” (Id. at PageID.3859.) Defendant’s motion is 

thoughtfully and carefully composed and sets for compelling reasons for 

a reduction in sentence. Unfortunately, none of those reasons allow for 

the relief Defendant seeks. Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, 

Defendant’s motion is denied. 

I. Legal Standard 

 “Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not 

authorize motions for reconsideration, the Supreme Court determined 

many years ago that defendants may file them.” United States v. Mack, 

831 F. App’x 787, 787 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Healy, 376 

U.S. 75, 78 (1964).) Motions for reconsideration in criminal cases are 

generally treated like motions for reconsideration in civil cases, which 

are governed by Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7(h). See e.g., 

United States v. Boston, No. 14-20383, 2021 WL 598547 at *1 (E.D. Mich. 

Feb. 16, 2021) (Edmunds, J.). Local Rule 7(h) permits reconsideration 

where (1) “the court made a mistake” and “correcting the mistake 

changes the outcome of the prior decision;” (2) “an intervening change in 

controlling law warrants a different outcome;” and (3) “new facts warrant 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 601, PageID.3959 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 6
3 

a different outcome and the new facts could not have been discovered 

with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.” 

II. Analysis 

 In Concepcion v. United States, just one year after the defendant 

was sentenced after pleading guilty to distributing five or more grams of 

crack cocaine in 2009, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act “to 

correct the harsh disparities between crack and powder cocaine at 

sentencing.” 142 S. Ct. at 2396. The Sentencing Commission 

“retroactively amended the Sentencing Guidelines to lower the guidelines 

range for crack-cocaine offenses[.]” Id. at 2397. Concepcion was not 

eligible for the retroactive relief because he had been “sentenced under 

the career offender enhancement[.]” However “he became eligible to have 

his sentence reduced in 2018 when Congress passed the First Step Act,” 

which authorized district courts to “‘impose a reduced sentence’ for 

qualifying movants as if . . . the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at 

the time” of his offense. Id. 

 The defendant in Concepcion filed a pro se motion under the First 

Step Act, arguing that the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing 

Act lowered his guidelines range. Id. The defendant argued that if he 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 601, PageID.3960 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 6
4 

were sentenced on the date of his First Step Act motion, he would not 

have been sentenced for as long a time because (1) he would no longer be 

considered a “career offender” because one of his prior convictions was 

vacated (which meant that an enhancement to his sentence would not be 

triggered); and (2) there was post-sentencing evidence of his 

rehabilitation, including that he completed drug and vocational 

programming. Id. The Supreme Court held that district courts have 

discretion to consider such information at proceedings in which a 

sentence is modified. See id. at 2398. In other words, the long tradition 

in the United States that “[w]when a defendant appears for sentencing, 

the sentencing court considers the defendant on that day, not on the date 

of his offense or the date of his conviction,” carries forward to “later 

proceedings that may modify an original sentence.” Id. at 2396, 2398. 

 The Concepcion Court distinguished the district court’s role in 

fashioning a sentence under First Step Act from its role in considering a 

modification of a sentence under a motion for compassionate release. Id. 

at 2401. In this case, the underlying motion before this Court does not 

involve a sentencing or resentencing decision under the First Step Act. 

Rather, Defendant originally filed a motion for compassionate release 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 601, PageID.3961 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 6
5 

under § 3582(c)(1)(A), which is not the same as a motion for modification 

of his sentence under the First Step Act. The Concepcion Court explained 

that, for sentence modification proceedings such as one for compassionate 

release, “Congress expressly cabined district courts’ discretion by 

requiring courts to abide by the Sentencing Commissions’ policy 

statements.” Id., see United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 842 (7th Cir. 

2022) (declining to extend Concepcion to the compassionate release 

setting). Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion does 

not change the outcome of this Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion 

for compassionate release. 

 Next, Defendant repeats the arguments set forth in his motion for 

compassionate release. (ECF No. 595 PageID.3859.) He does not identify 

an error in the Court’s decision that would justify reconsideration, 

however. Instead, he disagrees with the outcome, which is not a suitable 

reason to grant a motion for reconsideration. 

 Defendant’s motion for reconsideration also provides more detail 

regarding his desire to care for his mother. Defendant attached notes of 

interviews of his siblings regarding their mother and their enormously 

challenging childhoods. The Court’s heart breaks for all of the members 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 601, PageID.3962 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 6
6 

of this family. It especially appreciates the Defendant’s desire to help his 

mother, despite the difficulties he faced at her hands as a child. But this 

is information that was before the Court at the time of sentencing and at 

the time Defendant’s motion for compassionate release was denied. E.D. 

Mich. LR 7.1(g). And, as explained in the Court’s order denying 

Defendant’s motion, sadly, caring for an ailing family member is not an 

articulated reason for a reduction of a sentence. (See ECF No. 580, 

PageID.3822–3823.) 

III. Conclusion 

 In sum, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 14, 2022 s/Judith E. Levy 

 Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

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 December 14, 2022. 

s/William Barkholz 

WILLIAM BARKHOLZ 

Case Manager 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 601, PageID.3963 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 6