1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20312

v. Hon. Linda V. Parker

United States District Court

Anthony Jelinek,

Defendant.

United States’ Response Opposing

the Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release

In December 2014, Jelinek entered a room of a hotel that he did not 

have permission to access in Greenville, Texas, stealing an AR-15 

Bushmaster rifle, magazines for the rifle, a Versace bag, and several 

articles of clothing. (PSR ¶12). The semi-automatic firearm Jelinek 

stole, pictured below, is a serious weapon: 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.128 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 21
2

Not only did Jelinek steal a firearm, he also was not lawfully 

allowed to possess any firearm due to numerous prior felony 

convictions, including two assault-related convictions. (PSR ¶¶ 40-41, 

48-49).

Law enforcement arrested Jelinek for the offense in the Eastern 

District of Michigan and the case remained in the district pursuant 

F.R.C.P. 20 for his plea and sentencing to one count of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm.

The Court sentenced Jelinek to 84 months in federal prison on 

September 16, 2015. He now moves for compassionate release under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). His motion should be denied.

First, since January 2020, the Bureau of Prisons has been preparing 

for Covid-19, implementing strict precautions to minimize the virus’s 

spread in its facilities. Following two recent directives from the 

Attorney General, the Bureau of Prisons is also assessing its entire 

prison population to determine which inmates face the most risk from 

Covid-19, pose the least danger to public safety, and can safely be 

granted home confinement. This process necessarily requires the 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.129 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 21
3

Bureau of Prisons to identify the best candidates for release, ensure

that their homes are suitable for home confinement, and arrange a way 

to quarantine each of them for 14 days. As of May 29, 2020, these 

directives have already resulted in at least 3,392 inmates being placed 

on home confinement. See BOP Covid-19 Website.

Jelinek’s offense and criminal history make him a danger to the 

community, which precludes release under USSG § 1B1.13(2), because 

Jelinek has a history of assault, chronic substance abuse issues which 

have persisted through his incarceration, and he committed the 

burglary of a serious assault weapon in the present case. And the 

§ 3553(a) factors—which the Court must also consider under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)—likewise do not support release because release would 

depreciate the serious nature of this offense and fail to protect the 

public from further crimes by Jelinek. 

Background

On December 19, 2014, a hotel manager in Greenville, Texas, noticed 

several items missing from a storage area on the fourth floor of the 

hotel, including an AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, magazines for the rifle, 

Versace bag, and several articles of clothing. (PSR ¶ 12.). Upon viewing 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.130 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 21
4

the hotel surveillance video, the manager realized that Jelinek took 

several items and returned to his room on several different occasions 

over the last few days. Id. Officers made contact with Jelinek in his 

hotel room and found a duffel bag, which contained the magazine and 

disassembled Bushmaster rifle. (PSR ¶13). When confronted by an ATF 

Agent, Jelinek admitted to taking the firearm while on Xanax and 

alcohol. (R. 9-3: Govt Sent. Mem., Exhibit B, Pg.ID 60). Jelinek’s 

burglary of a firearm while under the influence of drugs and alcohol is a 

fairly aggravated violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 

In addition to this offense, Jelinek has a lengthy and troubling 

criminal history. Jelinek first received an assault and battery conviction 

in 1998. (PSR ¶31). Over the next two years, a multitude of convictions 

followed, mostly for petty theft offenses brought on by an apparent drug 

and alcohol program. (PSR ¶¶32-39). In 2001, Jelinek received a 

felonious assault conviction when he hit a gas station employee with his 

car after stealing gas. (PSR ¶40). When arrested, Jelinek had heroin 

and paraphernalia for heroin use on his person. Id. 

Jelinek then received two domestic violence convictions. (PSR ¶¶41-

45). The most aggravating of these involved Jelinek smashing the 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.131 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 21
5

windshield of a car which contained his child restrained in a car seat 

and then hitting that car with his own car while escaping the scene. 

(PSR ¶45). 

In an incident that defies explanation, Jelinek and a neighbor began 

an argument over pornographic DVDs that escalated into a physical 

fight. (PSR ¶49). From there, it escalated into Jelinek threatening to 

kill the neighbor and later cutting him with a knife. Id.

Jelinek was detained by consent during the pendency of this case and 

the court sentenced him to 84 months in federal prison on September 

16, 2015. He is currently incarcerated at FCI Hazelton. He is 50 years 

old, and his projected release date is March 26, 2021.

Since his incarceration, Jelinek has twice been found to be either 

using or possessing controlled substances. (Gov’ts. Exs. 1 and 2). 

Jelinek has medical conditions that include a serious heart condition 

as defined by the CDC. Jelinek has moved for compassionate release, 

citing his medical conditions and the Covid-19 pandemic. Jelinek has 

properly exhausted his administrative remedies and this Court can 

decide his motion.

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.132 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 21
6

Argument

I. The Bureau of Prisons has responded to Covid-19 by

protecting inmates and increasing home confinement. 

A. The Bureau of Prisons’ precautions have mitigated 

the risk from Covid-19 within its facilities. 

The Bureau of Prisons has reacted quickly to confront Covid-19’s 

spread within its facilities. For over almost a decade, the Bureau of 

Prisons has maintained a detailed protocol for responding to a 

pandemic. Consistent with that protocol, the Bureau of Prisons began 

planning for Covid-19 in January 2020. 

On March 13, 2020, the Bureau of Prisons began modifying its 

operations to implement its Covid-19 Action Plan and minimize the risk 

of Covid-19 transmission into and inside its facilities. See BOP Covid-19 

Modified Operations Website. Since then, as the worldwide crisis has 

evolved, the Bureau of Prisons has repeatedly revised its plan. To stop 

the spread of the disease, the Bureau of Prisons has restricted inmate 

movement within and between facilities. See id. Only limited group 

gathering is allowed, and social distancing is maximized. Staff and 

inmates are also issued face masks to wear in public areas. See BOP 

FAQs: Correcting Myths and Misinformation. 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.133 Filed 06/01/20 Page 6 of 21
7

Every newly admitted inmate is screened for Covid-19 risk factors 

and symptoms. Asymptomatic inmates with risk of exposure are placed 

in quarantine for a minimum of 14 days or until cleared by medical 

staff. Symptomatic inmates are provided with medical evaluation and 

treatment and are isolated from other inmates until testing negative for 

Covid-19 or being cleared by medical staff under the CDC’s criteria. In 

areas with sustained community transmission, all staff are screened for 

symptoms. Staff registering a temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit 

or higher are barred from the facility on that basis alone. A staff 

member with other symptoms can be placed on leave by a medical 

officer. 

Other access to the facilities has likewise been restricted. 

Contractors are only permitted access if performing essential services, 

and any contractor who requires access is screened for symptoms and 

risk factors. Social and legal visits have been suspended to limit the 

number of people entering the facility and interacting with inmates. 

But to ensure that relationships and communication are maintained 

throughout this disruption, the Bureau of Prisons has increased 

inmates’ telephone allowance to 500 minutes per month. Legal visits 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.134 Filed 06/01/20 Page 7 of 21
8

are permitted on a case-by-case basis after the attorney has been 

screened for infection. 

Like all other institutions, penal and otherwise, the Bureau of 

Prisons has not been able to eliminate the risks from Covid-19

completely, despite its best efforts. But the Bureau of Prisons’ measures 

will help federal inmates remain protected from Covid-19 and ensure 

that they receive any required medical care during these difficult times.

B. The Bureau of Prisons is increasing the number of 

inmates who are granted home confinement. 

The Bureau of Prisons has also responded to Covid-19 by increasing 

the placement of federal prisoners in home confinement. New 

legislation now temporarily permits the Bureau of Prisons to “lengthen 

the maximum amount of time for which [it] is authorized to place a 

prisoner in home confinement” during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) 

§ 12003(b)(2), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 516 (Mar. 27, 2020). 

The Attorney General has also issued two directives, ordering the 

Bureau of Prisons to use the “various statutory authorities to grant 

home confinement for inmates seeking transfer in connection with the 

ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.” (03-26-2020 Directive to BOP, at 1; accord

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.135 Filed 06/01/20 Page 8 of 21
9

04-03-2020 Directive to BOP, at 1). The directives require the Bureau of 

Prisons to identify the inmates most at risk from Covid-19 and “to 

consider the totality of circumstances for each individual inmate” in 

deciding whether home confinement is appropriate. (03-26-2020 

Directive to BOP, at 1). 

The Bureau of Prisons’ efforts on this point are not hypothetical. 

Over 3,545 federal inmates have been granted home confinement since 

the Covid-19 pandemic began, and that number continues to grow. BOP 

Coronavirus FAQs. As the Attorney General’s directives have explained, 

these home-confinement decisions have required evaluating several 

criteria: 

1.) Each inmate’s age and vulnerability to Covid-19;

2.) Whether home confinement would increase or decrease 

the inmate’s risk of contracting Covid-19; and

3.) Whether the inmate’s release into home confinement 

would risk public safety.

(03-26-2020 Directive to BOP; 04-03-2020 Directive to BOP). 

These criteria not only make sense, but also fit the realities of the 

Covid-19 pandemic far better than any other solution does. The Bureau 

of Prisons cannot open its facilities’ gates indiscriminately and unleash 

tens of thousands of convicted criminals, en masse. It must focus on the 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.136 Filed 06/01/20 Page 9 of 21
10

inmates who have the highest risk factors for Covid-19 and are least 

likely to engage in new criminal activity. This is true not just to protect

the public generally, but to avoid the risk that a released defendant will 

bring Covid-19 back into the jail or prison system if he violates his 

terms of release or is caught committing a new crime. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3624(g)(5); 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)(2). The Bureau of Prisons’ homeconfinement initiative thus appropriately focuses on the inmates who 

will most benefit from release and whose release is least risky.

The Bureau of Prisons must also balance another important 

consideration: how likely is an inmate to abide by the CDC’s socialdistancing protocols or other Covid-19-based restrictions on release? 

Many inmates—particularly those who have been convicted of serious 

offenses or have a lengthy criminal record—been already proven

unwilling to abide by society’s most basic norms. It is more than 

reasonable to evaluate whether a particular inmate would adhere to 

release conditions and social-distancing protocols during the pandemic. 

And if a prisoner would be unlikely to take release conditions or Covid19 precautions seriously, he would also be far more likely than the 

general public to contract and spread Covid-19 if released. 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.137 Filed 06/01/20 Page 10 of 21
11

Finally, the Bureau of Prisons’ home-confinement initiative allows it 

to marshal and prioritize its limited resources for the inmates and 

circumstances that are most urgent. For any inmate who is a candidate 

for home confinement, the Bureau of Prisons must first ensure that his 

proposed home-confinement location is suitable for release, does not 

place him at an even greater risk of contracting Covid-19, and does not 

place members of the public at risk from him. It must assess 

components of the release plan, including whether the inmate will have 

access to health care and other resources. It must consider myriad other 

factors, including the limited availability of transportation right now

and the probation department’s reduced ability to supervise inmates 

who have been released. All of those decisions require channeling

resources to the inmates who are the best candidates for release. 

Those types of system-wide resource-allocation decisions are difficult

even in normal circumstances. That is why Congress tasked the Bureau 

of Prisons to make them and has not subjected the decisions to judicial 

review. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is 

not reviewable by any court.”); United States v. Patino, No. 18- 20451, 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.138 Filed 06/01/20 Page 11 of 21
12

2020 WL 1676766, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2020) (“[A]s a general rule, 

the Court lacks authority to direct the operations of the Bureau of 

Prisons.”). It is especially true now, given the Bureau of Prisons’ 

substantial and ongoing efforts to address the Covid-19 pandemic.

II. The Court should deny Jelinek’s motion for compassionate 

release.

Jelinek’s motion for a reduced sentence should be denied. A district 

court has “no inherent authority . . . to modify an otherwise valid 

sentence.” United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 700 (6th Cir. 

2009). Quite the contrary: a district court’s authority to modify a 

defendant’s sentence is “narrowly circumscribed.” United States v. 

Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 753 n.2 (6th Cir. 2008). Absent a specific 

statutory exception, a district court “may not modify a term of 

imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Those 

statutory exceptions are narrow. United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 

586 (6th Cir. 2001). Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) is equally narrow.

Jelinek must show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for 

compassionate release, and release must be “consistent with” the 

Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.139 Filed 06/01/20 Page 12 of 21
13

To qualify, a defendant must have a medical condition, age-related 

issue, family circumstance, or other reason that satisfies the criteria in 

USSG § 1B1.13(1)(A) & cmt. n.1, and he must “not [be] a danger to the 

safety of any other person or to the community,” USSG § 1B1.13(2).

Even if a defendant is eligible for compassionate release, the district 

court may not grant the motion unless the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

support release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); USSG § 1B1.13. As at 

sentencing, those factors require the district court to consider the 

defendant’s history and characteristics, the seriousness of the offense, 

the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for 

the offense, general and specific deterrence, and the protection of the 

public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).b

A. Jelinek has a qualifying health condition but his 

dangerousness precludes his release. 

Compassionate release must be “consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Congress tasked the Sentencing Commission with 

“describ[ing] what should be considered extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for [a] sentence reduction” under § 3582(c)(1)(A), as well

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.140 Filed 06/01/20 Page 13 of 21
14

developing “the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples” for 

when release is permitted. 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 

Here, Jelinek has a qualifying medical condition. The over 600 pages 

of medical records reviewed by the government demonstrate that the 

BOP has provided Jelinek substantial medical care during his time in 

custody, including the December 2018 aortic valve replacement that he 

discusses within his brief. Jelinek also notes that he has a history of 

surgeries with post-operative infections, which does not seem to be a 

CDC risk factor. Were it not for Covid-19, there would be little question 

that the BOP could manage his health condition, as they have 

consistently done so. 

In fact, Jelinek’s circumstances raise the question whether he is at 

greater risk if released than in custody. Thus far, he has received strong 

medical care at a facility with no active Covid-19 cases amongst 

inmates and one active case in a staff member. 

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. Genesee County, Michigan, where 

Jelinek seeks release to, has over 2,000 historical cases of Covid-19. 

https://gchd.us/coronavirus/. 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.141 Filed 06/01/20 Page 14 of 21
15

The average person may have a higher relative risk of contracting 

Covid-19 in prison than if released among the public at large. But 

§ 1B1.13 requires an individualized assessment, and an individual

defendant’s relative risk varies widely. See United States v. Austin, No. 

15-20609, 2020 WL 2507622, at *4–*5 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020). It 

depends on the precautions at his prison, the number of Covid-19 cases 

there, whether and how much that number might increase or decrease, 

the prison’s medical facilities, the defendant’s release plan, the threat 

from Covid-19 in his release location, his access to medical care if 

released, and his willingness to abide by release restrictions and socialdistancing protocols. See id. Here, Jelinek’s history of discipline in 

prison for drug use and possession means that he is unlikely to engage 

in safe behaviors in the community. In the event of a Covid-19 

resurgence, it is significantly less likely that Jelinek will follow the 

dictates of shelter in place order if he reverts to using controlled 

substances, placing himself and others at risk.

While Jelinek’s medical conditions and the Covid-19 pandemic may 

satisfy the initial criteria for eligibility in USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, 

Jelinek is ineligible for compassionate release because he is a danger to 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.142 Filed 06/01/20 Page 15 of 21
16

the community. Section 1B1.13(2) only permits release if a “defendant is 

not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as 

provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).” It thus prohibits the release of violent 

offenders, including most drug dealers. See United States v. Stone, 608 

F.3d 939, 947–48 & n.6 (6th Cir. 2010). It also bars the release of many 

other defendants. An evaluation of dangerousness under § 3142(g) 

requires a comprehensive view of community safety—“a broader 

construction than the mere danger of physical violence.” United States 

v. Cook, 880 F.2d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). So even 

many “non-violent” offenders—such as those who have been involved in

serial or significant fraud schemes—may not be released under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). USSG § 1B1.13(2); see Stone, 608 F.3d at 948 n.7.

Adhering to § 1B1.13(2) is especially important given the current 

strain on society’s first responders and the rise in certain types of crime 

during the Covid-19 pandemic. Police departments in many cities have

been stretched to their limits as officers have either contracted Covid-19 

or been placed in quarantine. Some cities, including Detroit, have seen 

spikes in shootings and murders. Child sex predators have taken 

advantage of bored school-aged kids spending more time online. CovidCase 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.143 Filed 06/01/20 Page 16 of 21
17

19-based fraud schemes have proliferated. There are real risks to public 

safety right now, and those risks will only increase if our community is

faced with a sudden influx of convicted defendants. 

Because Jelinek’s release would endanger the community, 

§ 1B1.13(2) prohibits reducing his sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

Jelinek’s crime here involves stealing a semi-automatic firearm while 

under the influence of Xanax and alcohol. Most disturbing though is 

Jelinek’s prior record for assaultive behavior. Jelinek has four prior 

assault convictions, two of which were for felonious assaults. (PSR ¶¶ 

31, 40, 45, 49). He has a lengthy history of substance abuse and while in 

custody has twice received discipline for possessing using controlled 

substances. 

B. The factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) strongly weigh 

against compassionate release. 

Even when an inmate has shown “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” and demonstrated that he is not dangerous, he is still not 

entitled to compassionate release. Before ordering relief, the Court must 

consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determine that 

release is appropriate. See United States v. Austin, No. 15-20609, 2020 

WL 2507622, at *3–*5 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020) (holding that the 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.144 Filed 06/01/20 Page 17 of 21
18

“[d]efendant’s circumstances do not warrant compassionate release . . . 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”); United States v. Murphy, No. 15-20411, 

2020 WL 2507619, at *6 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020) (denying 

compassionate release because “the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors do not favor release”); see also United States v. Kincaid, 802 F. 

App’x 187, 188–89 (6th Cir. 2020) (upholding a district court’s denial of 

compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors). So even if the 

Court were to find Jelinek eligible for compassionate release, the 

§ 3553(a) factors should still disqualify him. 

Jelinek’s offense disqualifies him because it is very serious to possess 

a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity magazines after numerous 

assaultive convictions, including convictions that prohibit him from no 

longer possessing a firearm. (PSR ¶ 12). Jelinek not also possessed 

these items, he stole them over the course of several days. Id. Jelinek 

told the PSR writer he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at 

the time of the offense – which further aggravates this offense given his 

history and behavior while in custody. 

The most serious § 3553(a) factor which weighs against Jelinek’s 

release is his character. He has consistently violated the law in ways 

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.145 Filed 06/01/20 Page 18 of 21
19

that place others in danger and directly assaulted others. (PSR ¶¶ 31-

49). He has 19 separate cases with criminal convictions. Id. Jelinek’s 

prior record and discipline history in custody demonstrate that he is not 

able to control himself and is a danger to the public. Jelinek’s violent 

behavior speaks poorly to his character and factors heavily against 

compassionate release. 

Jelinek’s history of violent behavior and the seriousness of his 

offense mean that his early release disregards the need to protect the 

public from Jelinek’s behavior. Releasing Jelinek from his sentence is a 

risk to the public that is not warranted.

III. If the Court were to grant Jelinek’s motion, it should order 

a 14-day quarantine before release.

If the Court were inclined to grant Jelinek’s motion despite the

government’s arguments above, the Court should order that he be

subjected to a 14-day quarantine before release.

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.146 Filed 06/01/20 Page 19 of 21
20

Conclusion 

Jelinek’s motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

MATTHEW SCHNEIDER 

United States Attorney

Date: June 1, 2020 s/Christopher W. Rawsthorne

Christopher W. Rawsthorne

Assistant United States Attorney

600 Church Street

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 766-5177

christopher.rawsthorne@usdoj.gov

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.147 Filed 06/01/20 Page 20 of 21
21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 1, 2020, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed by an employee of the United States Attorney=s 

Office with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will 

send notification of such filing to the following:

Glenn M. Simmington

s/Christopher W. Rawsthorne

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:15-cr-20312-LVP-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.148 Filed 06/01/20 Page 21 of 21