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 

Mag. Judge David R. Grand 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [567] 

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

reduction of sentence or compassionate release. (ECF No. 567.) He is 

currently incarcerated at USP Terre Haute. Defendant seeks 

compassionate release because “the COVID-19 Pandemic coupled with 

[his] prison conditions, retroactive modification, [his] sentencing 

disparities, and his post sentence rehabilitation” qualify as 

“extraordinary circumstances” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 

567, PageID.3751.) He also wishes to care for his mother, who has several 

health problems. (ECF No. 568.) Although the Court commends 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3815 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 11
2 

Defendant for his strong advocacy on his own behalf, for the reasons set 

forth below, the motion is denied. 

I. Background 

On June 29, 2017, Defendant was sentenced to 360 months 

imprisonment after he pled guilty to one count of racketeering, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). (ECF No. 273.) 

On November 12, 2021, Defendant moved for compassionate release 

and/or reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (ECF 

No. 567.) In his motion and a letter1 (ECF No. 568), Defendant sets forth 

five arguments in favor of compassionate release. First, it is Defendant’s 

position that USP Terre Haute, where he is housed, “cannot protect him 

from COVID-19, due to the facility failing to maintain hygiene, a sterile 

environment, and physical distance from others.” (ECF No. 567, 

PageID.3755.) Second, Defendant argues that “his sentence 

enhancement is no longer valid” because of a “new retroactive rule of law 

in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).” (Id. at PageID.3756.) 

1 Although Defendant did not seek leave of the Court before filing this letter, 

the Court will still consider this filing because “[a] document filed pro se is ‘to be 

liberally construed.’” United States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736, 739 (6th Cir. 2016) 

(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3816 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 11
3 

Third, Defendant claims that his “behavior as a rehabilitated person” 

while incarcerated—that is, voluntary completion of Adult Continuing 

Education Courses, “deeply felt remorse,” and an “exemplary disciplinary 

record”—mitigates the government’s interest in his continuing detention. 

(Id. at PageID.3758; see also ECF No. 570, PageID.3777 (letter from 

Defendant’s counselor at USP Terre Haute Counselor).) Fourth, 

Defendant contends that because his Co-Defendant Benjamin Beightol 

was granted compassionate release, he too should be granted 

compassionate release to maintain sentencing parity between 

individuals found guilty of similar conduct. (ECF No. 567, PageID.3759.) 

Finally, Defendant sent a letter to the Court stating that his 

“Compassionate Release is warranted due to the fact that his Mom needs 

his help to care for her.” (ECF No. 568, PageID.3771.) 

Defendant filed a motion for compassionate release with the 

warden, which was denied. (See ECF No. 567, PageID.3752.) Defendant’s 

appeal of the warden’s decision was also denied. (ECF No. 570.) 

II. Legal Standard 

Compassionate-release motions require a “three-step inquiry.” 

United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 518 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting United 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3817 Filed 07/05/22 Page 3 of 11
4 

States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1101 (6th Cir. 2020)). First, “the court 

must ‘find’ that ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant [a 

sentence] reduction.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 980 F.3d 

at 1101). Second, the Court must “ensure ‘that such a reduction is 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.’” Id. (quoting Jones, 980 F.3d at 1101). Third, the Court 

must “consider[] all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a).” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 980 F.3d at 1101). “If 

each of those requirements are met, the district court ‘may reduce the 

term of imprisonment,’ but need not do so.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A)). 

III. Analysis 

A. No “Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons” Warrant 

Compassionate Release 

Defendant provides four arguments regarding “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” warranting reduction of his sentence: insufficient 

COVID-19 protections at USP Terre Haute, the purported retroactive 

rules of law regarding his sentence enhancement, his rehabilitation 

efforts, and his desire to care for his mother. The Court addresses each 

in turn and holds that Defendant does not present “extraordinary and 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3818 Filed 07/05/22 Page 4 of 11
5 

compelling reasons” for compassionate release under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

i. Defendant’s Access to Vaccination Against COVID-19 

Sixth Circuit precedent forecloses Defendant’s argument that lax 

social-distancing protocols and unsanitary facilities amount to an 

“extraordinary and compelling reason” that he will be harmed by COVID19 because he has access to COVID-19 vaccines. Regarding social 

distancing in prisons, the Sixth Circuit found that “inmates in some 

respects face social distancing challenges distinct from those of the 

general public (although perhaps not entirely unlike students in dorm 

rooms, individuals in medical and assisted care facilities, and even 

residents of densely occupied apartment complexes),” but it endorsed the 

Seventh Circuit’s holding that “for people living in close quarters, 

vaccines offer relief far more effective than a judicial order.” United 

States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747, 751 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States 

v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021)). 

Regardless of Defendant’s vaccination status—which he does not 

disclose in his motion—the COVID-19 vaccine is available to all inmates 

in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, including inmates at Defendant’s 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3819 Filed 07/05/22 Page 5 of 11
6 

facility, USP Terre Haute. See COVID-19 Coronavirus, Federal Bureau 

of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (June 30, 2022). And, the 

Sixth Circuit has held that “a defendant's incarceration during the 

COVID-19 pandemic—when the defendant has access to the COVID-19 

vaccine—does not present an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ 

warranting a sentence reduction.” United States v. Traylor, 16 F.4th 485, 

487 (6th Cir. 2021 (quoting Lemons, 15 F.4th at 751)).2 Defendant has 

neither presented any evidence that he has medical conditions which put 

2 Whether Defendant is vaccinated against COVID-19 does not alter the 

Court’s conclusion that his access to the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates the risk the 

virus will harm him. The Sixth Circuit has “cast doubt on a defendant’s ability to 

meet Section 3852’s [sic] ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ requirement 

following their inoculation against COVID-19.” United States v. Sweet, No. 21-1477, 

2021 WL 5371402, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2021) (quoting United States v. Lemons, 

15 F.4th 747, 749 (6th Cir. 2021). The Sixth Circuit observed that “following full 

vaccination, it is now well understood, both the likelihood of contracting COVID-19 

and the associated risks should one contract the virus are significantly reduced.” Id.

(quoting Lemons, 15 F.4th at 751). Courts in this Circuit have also refused to find 

extraordinary and compelling medical circumstances when a defendant declines the 

COVID-19 vaccine. See United States v. Austin, No. 15-20609, 2021 WL 1137987, at 

*2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2021) (denying compassionate release in light of the COVID19 pandemic to a prisoner who declined to be vaccinated, without justification, 

because of hesitance “to provide prisoners an incentive to increase their risk of 

contracting COVID-19 and developing severe symptoms.”), aff’d, 2021 WL 4771125 

(6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021); United States v. Manderfield, No. 16-20817, 2021 WL 

2476577, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2021); United States v. Goston, No. 15-20694, 

2021 WL 872215, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2021); United States v. Macgregor, No. 15-

20093, 2021 WL 1378786, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2021); United States v. Ervin, 

No. 14-000195 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2021) (Richardson, J.).

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3820 Filed 07/05/22 Page 6 of 11
7 

him at greater risk of harm from coronavirus than other people, nor has 

he presented a reason he cannot be vaccinated against this virus. 

Therefore, the danger currently posed to Defendant by COVID-19 at USP 

Terre Haute is not an extraordinary and compelling circumstance that 

warrants a reduction in sentence. 

ii. Retroactive Modification 

Defendant argues that because of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), his conviction no longer 

qualifies as a crime of violence, because that decision retroactively 

changed the law applicable to his case. (See ECF No. 567, PageID.3756–

3757.) Defendant previously asserted this argument in two prior motions 

for extensions of time to file a habeas petition. (ECF Nos. 478, 563.) As 

the Court explained in denying Defendant’s earlier motions, Davis is 

inapplicable to his case. (See ECF No. 507, PageID.2905 n.3; ECF No. 

566, PageID.3748.) Therefore, Defendant has not presented evidence of a 

modification in the sentencing guidelines for the crime for his conviction. 

iii. Post-Sentence Rehabilitation Efforts3

3 On November 30, 2021, the Court received a letter regarding Defendant’s 

difficult childhood and his desire to parent his sons from his cousin, Cinty Estrada. 

On December 6, 2021, the Court received a letter regarding Defendant’s good 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3821 Filed 07/05/22 Page 7 of 11
8 

Defendant also points to his voluntary enrollment in continuing 

education classes, “exemplary disciplinary record,” and “deeply felt 

remorse” as evidence of his rehabilitation while in prison. The Court 

commends Defendant’s rehabilitation efforts, but “Congress has made 

clear that ‘[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered 

an extraordinary and compelling reason’ for compassionate release.” 

United States v. Burlingame, No. 1:15-cr-20042, 2021 WL 5198510, at *3 

(E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 994(t)); United States v. 

Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1009 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Hatcher, No. 

01-80361, 2021 WL 1056841, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2021)), appeal 

dismissed, 2021 WL 3234549 (6th Cir. July 1, 2021). 

i. Care for Defendant’s Mother 

Defendant claims that his “Compassionate Release is warranted” 

because his mother has limited mobility and other health issues, and she 

“needs his help to care for her.4” (ECF No. 568, PageID.3771.) While the 

character and efforts at rehabilitation from his friend, Tiffany Baldridge. The two 

letters were not filed on the docket. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the letters 

because of its solicitude towards pro se prisoner litigants. See, e.g., Smotherman, 838 

F.3d at 739. 

4 On November 30, 2021, the Court received a letter from Defendant’s mother, 

Anita Harris, describing her health problems and her wish for Defendant to care for 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3822 Filed 07/05/22 Page 8 of 11
9 

Court finds his desire to help his mother admirable, the compassionate 

release statute, 18 U.S.C. §3582(c), defines the “extraordinary and 

compelling” reasons set forth in United States Sentencing Guideline 

§ 1B1.13, and care of a parent is not an articulated reason for a reduced 

sentence. Rather, § 1B1.13 provides for only one type of “Family 

Circumstances,” specifically, the death or incapacitation of a spouse or 

caregiver to the defendant’s minor children, which is not applicable to the 

circumstances with Defendant’s mother. Federal Sentencing Guidelines 

§ 1B1.13. And caring for one’s ailing parent does not fall under the “Other 

Reasons” category of the section § 1B1.13. Therefore, this factor does not 

favor Defendant’s compassionate release, though Defendant’s 

willingness to care for his mother is commendable. 

B. Sentencing Factors Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

Defendant contends that because compassionate release was 

granted to a co-defendant (ECF No. 541), the Court should also grant him 

compassionate release so that the it does “not create a drastic sentencing 

disparity with defendant[ ]s ‘who have been found guilty of similar 

her. The letter was not filed on the docket. Still, the Court has reviewed the letter 

and appreciates it very much. See, e.g., Smotherman, 838 F.3d at 739. 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3823 Filed 07/05/22 Page 9 of 11
10 

conduct.’” (ECF No. 567, PageID.3759 (paraphrasing 18 U.S.C. § 3553 

(a)(6)).) However, the Sixth Circuit has “explained . . . that 

[18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)] concerns national disparities between 

defendants with similar criminal histories convicted of similar criminal 

conduct—not disparities between codefendants.” United States v. Bass, 

17 F.4th 629, 636 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Conatser, 514 

F.3d 508, 521 (6th Cir. 2008)). And in any event, the co-defendant had 

different sentencing guidelines and a very different sentence from 

Defendant. 

Still, courts are not precluded from considering sentencing 

disparities between co-defendants when evaluating motions for 

compassionate release (see United States v. Dale, No. 92-81127, 2022 WL 

163612, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2022)), and it may be possible that nonretroactive sentencing disparities may support a compassionate-release 

motion when combined with other factors (see United States v. McCall, 

20 F.4th 1108, 1113 (6th Cir. 2021), reh’g en banc granted, opinion 

vacated, 29 F.4th 816 (6th Cir. 2022)). Nonetheless, in this case, 

Defendant does not argue that any other 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factor favors 

his release. 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3824 Filed 07/05/22 Page 10 of 11
11 

IV. Conclusion 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for compassionate release (ECF 

No. 567) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 5, 2022 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing notice was 

served upon the parties and/or counsel of record herein by electronic 

means or First Class U.S. mail. 

s/L. Bartlett for William Barkholz 

Dated: July 5, 2022 Case Manager 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 580, PageID.3825 Filed 07/05/22 Page 11 of 11