1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GREGORY SWARN, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:14-cr-20599-7 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [721] 

Defendant Gregory Swarn moved for compassionate release under the First 

Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). ECF 721. Defendant primarily argued that an 

underlying kidney condition and a prescribed medication for eczema increases his 

risk of suffering severe illness from a COVID-19 infection. Id. at 4048. Defendant also 

suggested that he needs to care for an elderly parent. Id. at 4050. The Government 

opposed the motion. ECF 725. After reviewing the briefs, the Court will deny 

Defendant's motion for compassionate release.

LEGAL STANDARD 

Under the First Step Act's compassionate release provision, the Court may 

modify a defendant's sentence only if: (1) they have exhausted all administrative 

remedies; or (2) thirty days have passed since the warden received the defendant's 

request for the BOP to bring a motion on their behalf. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The 

exhaustion requirement is "mandatory." United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833–

34 (6th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). Defendant has the 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 726, PageID.4128 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 6
 2

burden of establishing that they have exhausted all their administrative remedies. 

See United States v. Pena-Lora, No. 15-20695, 2020 WL 3886384, at *1 (E.D. Mich. 

July 9, 2020) (citation omitted). A defendant fails to exhaust their administrative 

remedies when "the factual basis in the administrative request and the motion before 

the [C]ourt are different[.]" United States v. Asmar, 465 F. Supp. 3d 716, 719 (E.D. 

Mich. 2020). Here, Defendant has exhausted the compassionate release request. ECF 

721, PgID 4052–54. 

Because Defendant exhausted the request, he must satisfy "three substantive 

requirements" for the Court to grant compassionate release. United States v. Ruffin, 

978 F.3d 1000, 1004 (6th Cir. 2020). First, the Court must "find[] 

that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." Id. at 1003 

(quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). "[D]istrict courts have discretion to define 'extraordinary 

and compelling' on their own initiative." United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519–20 

(6th Cir. 2021) (citing Jones, 980 F.3d at 1111; Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1007). "Several 

cases in the Eastern District of Michigan have adopted textual analyses to determine 

what reasons are 'extraordinary and compelling.'" United States v. Powell, No. 2:12-

cr-20052-2, 2021 WL 613233, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2021) (Murphy, J.) (collecting 

cases). An "extraordinary and compelling reason" for compassionate release is one 

that is "beyond what is common, and the forcefulness of the evidence tends to convince 

the Court to release the inmate." Id. (quotations and citations omitted). "Put another 

way, an extraordinary and compelling reason is one that is beyond what is usual, 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 726, PageID.4129 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 6
 3

customary, regular, or common, and is so great that irreparable harm or injustice 

would result if the relief is not granted." Id. (cleaned up). 

Second, the Court must "find that such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. at 1005 

(quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A) (alterations omitted)); but see United States v. Hampton, 985 

F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2021) (explaining that district courts "may now 'skip step two'" 

because there is no applicable policy statement) (quoting United States v. Jones, 980 

F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th Cir. 2020)). Third, the Court must consider the applicable 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1005 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant's reasons for compassionate release fall into two categories: health 

concerns related to COVID-19 and the need to care for an elderly parent. The Court 

will address each in turn. 

I. Health Concerns 

Defendant presented information to demonstrate that he has two medical 

conditions that increase his risk of contracting COVID-19 and of suffering severe 

illness if an infection occurs. ECF 721, PgID 4048. The first medical condition is 

chronic kidney disease. Id. at 4048, 4061. The Government admitted "that chronic 

kidney disease is identified by the CDC as a risk factor for serious illness from 

C[OVID]-19, and that [Defendant] has therefore shown greater susceptibility" to 

severe illness if he contracts COVID-19. ECF 725, PgID 4098. The second condition 

relates to Defendant's eczema medication. ECF 721, PgID 4048. According to 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 726, PageID.4130 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 6
 4

Defendant, the medication is a corticosteroid that has "immune-weakening" effects. 

Id. 

But neither health condition is an "extraordinary and compelling reason[]" 

warranting a reduction in Defendant's sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Court is 

not persuaded that Defendant is sincerely concerned about the actual health risks of 

contracting COVID-19. Defendant declined to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in April 

2021. ECF 725-4, PgID 4126. Vaccination significantly reduces the risk of infection. 

See United States v. Toney, No. 17-20184, 2021 WL 1175410, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 

29, 2021) (Levy, J.) (collecting sources on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines). 

Courts in the Eastern District of Michigan have routinely "refused to find 

extraordinary and compelling medical circumstances when a defendant declines the 

COVID-19 vaccine." Id. (collecting cases). 

Although Defendant is concerned about possible COVID-19 variants, 

vaccination would also alleviate those concerns. ECF 721; PgID 4046. The Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention remains steadfast that "[t]he COVID-19 vaccines 

approved or authorized in the United States are highly effective at preventing severe 

disease and death, including against the Delta variant." Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Delta Variant: What We Know About the Science (Aug. 26, 2021), 

https://bit.ly/3jhomVI [https://perma.cc/8C7T-L7JL]. As a result, concerns over 

variants, at this time, do not change the Court's analysis. See United States v. Wilson, 

No. 16-20081, 2021 WL 3417917, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2021) (Goldsmith, J.) 

(rejecting a defendant's Delta variant concerns); United States v. Jackson, No. 11-

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 726, PageID.4131 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 6
 5

20493, 2021 WL 3417910, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2021) (Goldsmith, J.) ("[T]he Court 

will not grant [Defendant] release based on his alleged fear of variants."). Defendant's 

health concerns fail to rise to the level of "extraordinary and compelling" and 

therefore do not warrant a reduction in Defendant's sentence. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

II. Need to Care for an Elderly Parent 

In addition to raising the health concerns, Defendant also suggested that he 

was entitled to compassionate release because he needs to care for an elderly parent. 

ECF 721, PgID 4050. Courts in the Eastern District of Michigan routinely deny 

compassionate release motions when the extraordinary and compelling reason put 

forth by a defendant is the need to care for an elderly parent. See United States v. 

Newton, 478 F. Supp. 3d 591, 595 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (Drain, J.) ("[T]he fact that 

Defendant's mother suffers from medical hardships, while unfortunate, does not in 

and of itself create a compelling reason to release Defendant."); United States v. 

Johnson, No. 11-20493, 2021 WL 822495, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2021) (Goldsmith, 

J.) ("However, 'simply having an elderly parent who may need assistance, and may 

be susceptible to COVID-19, is not, by itself, exceptional and does not justify early 

release.'") (quoting and citing United States v. Benson, No. 03-80139, 2021 WL 

527280, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2021) (Cleland, J.)); see also United States v. 

Coates, No.13-cr-20303, 2020 WL 7640058, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2020) (Dawkins 

Davis, J.) ("[C]ourts have concluded that taking care of an ailing parent does not 

present an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant release.") (collecting cases 

and granting motion on other grounds). While the Court is sympathetic toward the 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 726, PageID.4132 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 6
 6

health condition of Defendant's parent, the Court will adopt the persuasive reasoning 

of other courts in the Eastern District of Michigan. Defendant's need to care for his 

elderly parent does not rise to the level of "extraordinary and compelling" and 

therefore does not warrant a reduction in Defendant's sentence. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

CONCLUSION 

 Neither Defendant's health concerns nor his need to care for an elderly parent 

meet the "extraordinary and compelling" standard for compassionate release. As a 

result, the Court will deny Defendant's motion. 

ORDER 

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

compassionate release [721] is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: September 8, 2021 

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

and/or counsel of record on September 8, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/ David P. Parker 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:14-cr-20599-SJM-RSW ECF No. 726, PageID.4133 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 6