UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 1:15-cr-20314 

 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

SAMUEL LEE CURNEY, 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On May 27, 2015, Defendant Samuel Lee Curney was indicted by a grand jury on one 

count of distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). ECF No. 1. Defendant pled 

guilty and was sentenced to 140 months incarceration. ECF No. 19. 

 On July 8, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A) (Compassionate Release). ECF No. 54. Defendant cites the nature of his crime and 

character and that his ten-year-old daughter’s caregiver “has been diagnosed with Hashimoto.”1

Id. at PageID.297. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) provides, 

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except 

. . . upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the 

defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal 

a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the 

lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s 

facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after 

considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 

applicable, if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 

reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission 

1

 Defendant has provided no proof of his child’s caregiver’s medical diagnosis or the effect the alleged condition has 

on the caregiver’s ability to care for Defendant’s child. 

Case 1:15-cr-20314-TLL-PTM ECF No. 56, PageID.314 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, the threshold question is exhaustion. If exhaustion is 

found, courts must then follow the statute’s three-step test: 

At step one, a court must “find[ ]” whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant” a sentence reduction. At step two, a court must “find[ ]” whether “such a 

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” The Commission’s policy statement on compassionate release 

resides in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Thus, if § 1B1.13 is still “applicable,” courts must 

“follow the Commission’s instructions in [§ 1B1.13] to determine the prisoner's 

eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” 

At step three, “§ 3582(c)[(1)(A)] instructs a court to consider any applicable § 

3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized 

by [steps one and two] is warranted in whole or in part under the particular 

circumstances of the case.” 

United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1107–08 (6th Cir. 2020) (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020) (internal 

citations omitted). “In cases where incarcerated persons [as opposed to the Bureau of Prisons] file 

motions for compassionate release, federal judges may skip step two of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry 

and have full discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’ without consulting the policy 

statement § 1B1.13.” Id. at 1111. “[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.” United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021). 

As explained in the statute, before a court may consider an inmate’s request for a reduced 

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, the inmate must first exhaust his administrative remedies with 

the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) or wait 30 days after making such a request. Failure to comply with 

18 U.S.C. § 3582’s exhaustion requirement forecloses compassionate release. United States v. 

Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 835 (6th Cir. 2020). 

Defendant’s Motion does not include proof of any attempt to exhaust his administrative 

remedies with the BOP. See ECF No. 54 at PageID.294. As a result, Defendant’s Motion will be 

denied without prejudice. Defendant may file another motion for compassionate release, but he 

Case 1:15-cr-20314-TLL-PTM ECF No. 56, PageID.315 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

must include evidence that he requested compassionate release from the BOP and that such request 

was denied or at least 30 days have passed. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release, ECF 

No. 54, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Dated: August 12, 2021 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:15-cr-20314-TLL-PTM ECF No. 56, PageID.316 Filed 08/12/21 Page 3 of 3