UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Criminal Case No. 15-20351

Shahid Tahir, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

_______________________/

OPINION & ORDER

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

In this criminal action, Defendant Shahid Tahir (“Defendant”) pleaded guilty to the

charge of healthcare fraud conspiracy and was sentenced to a term of 126 months’ imprisonment. 

The matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which is based upon concerns about the ongoing novel coronavirus

pandemic (“COVID-19”). This motion asks the Court to allow Defendant to serve the remainder

of his sentence at home because he is concerned that he could contract the virus, and that he may

be vulnerable to severe illness if he were to contract it because of his medical conditions. The

Court heard oral argument on September 18, 2020. As explained below, the Court shall DENY

the motion because: 1) Defendant poses a danger to the community and thus his release would

not be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and 2)

because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors do not favor his release. 

BACKGROUND

In this criminal case, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count I of the Indictment, which

charged Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud and Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 362 filed 09/22/20 PageID.2867 Page 1 of 4
1349, and for which the penalty is a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment. Under his

Rule 11 Agreement, Defendant’s sentence guideline range was 135 to 158 months’

imprisonment. This Court ultimately sentenced Defendant to a term of 126 months

imprisonment.

Defendant began serving his sentence on March 28, 2017. Thus, Defendant has served

less than half of his sentence. Defendant is currently housed at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania. 

Defendant is 51 years old. It is undisputed that Defendant has Type II Diabetes and

hypertension.

Defendant filed his Motion for Compassionate Release on August 6, 2020. The

Government acknowledges that Defendant exhausted his administrative remedies but opposes

the motion on the merits.

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release is brought under 18 U.S.C.

§3582(c)(1)(A) and asks this Court to allow him to serve the remainder of his sentence in home

confinement.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the Court may reduce an imposed sentence if it

determines that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” On top of

making this finding, the Court must also consider the sentencing factors described in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) and decide if a sentence reduction would be “consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2018) is the

2

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 362 filed 09/22/20 PageID.2868 Page 2 of 4
“applicable policy statement” with which the Court must comply when considering Defendant’s

request for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Section 1B1.13 explains that a

defendant must “not [be] a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community” under

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and must fit within at least one of four categories of “extraordinary and

compelling reasons.” Those categories are: “Medical Condition of the Defendant,” “Age of the

Defendant,” “Family Circumstances,” and “Other Reasons.” 

In sum, a defendant seeking compassionate release must present extraordinary and

compelling circumstances, must have § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors weigh in his favor, must not

be a threat to others as determined by § 3142(g), and must fit within one of the four categories in

§ 1B.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Shah, 2020 WL 1934930 at *1 (E.D.

Mich. April 22, 2020) (citations omitted); United States v. Murphy, 2020 WL 2507619 at *3-4

(E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020).

Here, Defendant’s medical records establish that he has diabetes and hypertension. The

Government acknowledges that given the heightened risk that COVID poses to someone with

that/those conditions, Defendant has satisfied the first eligibility threshold for compassionate

release during this pandemic. 

But the Government persuasively argues that Defendant is ineligible for compassionate

release because he is a danger to the community. Section 1B1.13(2) permits release only 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).” The record does not support such a finding in this case, where Defendant

played a key role in a large-scale health care fraud conspiracy. Defendant asserts that, because he

has lost his physical therapy license and is no longer able to bill Medicare, he cannot repeat his

3

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 362 filed 09/22/20 PageID.2869 Page 3 of 4
criminal conduct upon release. But, as the Government notes, Defendant’s inability to provide

physical therapy services or directly bill Medicare does not prevent him from engaging in

healthcare fraud with others.

The § 3553(a) factors, including Defendant’s history and characteristics, seriousness of

the offense, promoting respect for the law, and providing just punishment also weigh against

Defendant’s request for compassionate release. Defendant’s criminal conduct was serious, as he

played an integral role in a large-scale health care fraud scheme that lasted nearly a decade and

resulted in a loss of approximately $17 million to the Medicare program. Allowing Defendant to

be released after serving less than half of his already-reduced sentence would not promote

respect for the law or proper deterrence, provide just punishment, and avoid unwanted

sentencing disparities. This Court concludes that Defendant is not an appropriate candidate for

the extraordinary remedy of compassionate release.1

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for

Compassionate Release is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: September 22, 2020

1

The Court notes that it granted a Motion for Compassionate Release filed by Waseem

Alam, a Co-Defendant in this case. Alam, however, did not play as large of a role in the health

care fraud conspiracy, is 13 years older than Defendant, has numerous and severe medical

conditions, and had served a greater proportion of his sentence.

4

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 362 filed 09/22/20 PageID.2870 Page 4 of 4