1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-20010 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

DEONTAE HOLMES, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION [182] 

Defendant Deontae Holmes is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons (“BOP”) at FCI Beckley. The matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for 

a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 182.) The government 

has not filed a response. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background 

In June 2015, Defendant pled guilty to four counts of Hobbs Act robbery in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 36.) On January 21, 2016, the 

Court sentenced Defendant to be imprisoned for a term of 174 months. (ECF No. 100.) 

Defendant did not file a direct appeal but filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 later that year. (ECF No. 102.) The Court entered its 

judgment denying that motion and declining to issue a certificate of appealability in 

September 2017. (ECF Nos. 125, 126.) Defendant’s appeal from that judgment was 

dismissed by the Sixth Circuit as untimely. (ECF No. 138.) 

Case 2:15-cr-20010-NGE-EAS ECF No. 183, PageID.934 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 4
2

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant moved for 

compassionate release. (ECF Nos. 149, 150.) The Court denied that request, finding no 

extraordinary and compelling reasons that would warrant relief and further finding that the 

sentencing factors did not support a reduction in sentence. (ECF No. 168.) Defendant’s 

appeal from that order was dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 177.) 

Defendant later moved the Sixth Circuit for an order authorizing this Court to 

consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence 

under § 2255. (6th Cir. Case No. 21-1438.) The Sixth Circuit denied that request, finding 

Defendant had not presented any newly discovered evidence that would warrant 

authorization. (ECF No. 179.) Defendant now moves once again for a sentence reduction. 

II. Analysis

The compassionate release provision set forth in § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows district 

courts to reduce a term of imprisonment for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” See 

United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1100 (6th Cir. 2020). Under this provision, a 

defendant may bring a motion for compassionate release on his own behalf after 

1) exhausting the BOP’s administrative process, or 2) thirty days have passed from the 

warden’s receipt of a request for release from the defendant—whichever is earlier. Id. at 

1105. Before granting compassionate release pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court must 

conduct the following “‘three-step inquiry:’” the court must 1) “‘find’ that ‘extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction,’” 2) “ensure ‘that such a reduction is 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,’” and 

3) “‘consider all relevant sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).’” United States 

v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 518 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Jones, 980 F.3d at 1101). There are 

Case 2:15-cr-20010-NGE-EAS ECF No. 183, PageID.935 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2 of 4
3

currently no applicable policy statements for compassionate release motions brought 

directly by defendants. See id. at 519. 

Here, Defendant has submitted proof of exhaustion. (ECF No. 182, PageID.928.) 

Thus, the Court will address Defendant’s motion on the merits. Defendant argues that his 

fourth robbery was only an attempt and thus he was “charged and sentenced to the wrong 

crime.” (See id.) But this argument constitutes an attack on the validity of an underlying 

conviction. This Court previously found a similar argument made by Defendant not to 

constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. (See ECF 

No. 168, PageID.846.) And the Sixth Circuit recently stated that a defendant “cannot avoid 

[the statutory] restrictions on post-conviction relief by resorting to a request for 

compassionate release instead.” United States v. McCall, 56 F.4th 1048, 1057 (6th Cir. 

2022) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also United States v. Hunter, 12 F.4th 

555, 570 (6th Cir. 2021) (“facts that existed at sentencing cannot later be construed as 

‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ to reduce a final sentence”). In fact, Defendant 

sought authorization from the Sixth Circuit to file a second or successive motion for postconviction relief under § 2255 to raise this exact claim but that request was denied. (See

6th Cir. Case No. 21-1438, Doc. 1, Page 10.) And while the Court commends Defendant 

on his efforts towards rehabilitation, this alone cannot serve as the basis for a 

compassionate release motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Thus, Defendant has not shown 

extraordinary and compelling reasons that would warrant a sentence reduction. In light of 

this conclusion, the Court need not reconsider the § 3553(a) factors. See Elias, 984 F.3d 

at 519 (“[D]istrict courts may deny compassionate-release motions when any of the three 

prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking and do not need to address the others.”). 

Case 2:15-cr-20010-NGE-EAS ECF No. 183, PageID.936 Filed 02/13/23 Page 3 of 4
4

III. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction is 

DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 13, 2023 

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

on February 13, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Lisa Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:15-cr-20010-NGE-EAS ECF No. 183, PageID.937 Filed 02/13/23 Page 4 of 4