UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Case No.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE) 

v.

Upon motion of տ the defendant տ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a reduction 

in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and after considering the applicable factors 

provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is: 

տ GRANTED 

տ The defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment of _____________________ 

is reduced to ____________________________. If this sentence is less than the amount of time 

the defendant already served, the sentence is reduced to a time served; or 

տ Time served. 

If the defendant’s sentence is reduced to time served: 

տ This order is stayed for up to fourteen days, for the verification of the 

defendant’s residence and/or establishment of a release plan, to make 

appropriate travel arrangements, and to ensure the defendant’s safe 

release. The defendant shall be released as soon as a residence is verified, 

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER DAVIS

15-cr-20152

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1693 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 7
2

a release plan is established, appropriate travel arrangements are made, 

and it is safe for the defendant to travel. There shall be no delay in 

ensuring travel arrangements are made. If more than fourteen days are 

needed to make appropriate travel arrangements and ensure the 

defendant’s safe release, the parties shall immediately notify the court and 

show cause why the stay should be extended; or

տ There being a verified residence and an appropriate release plan in place, 

this order is stayed for up to fourteen days to make appropriate travel 

arrangements and to ensure the defendant’s safe release. The defendant 

shall be released as soon as appropriate travel arrangements are made and 

it is safe for the defendant to travel. There shall be no delay in ensuring 

travel arrangements are made. If more than fourteen days are needed to 

make appropriate travel arrangements and ensure the defendant’s safe 

release, then the parties shall immediately notify the court and show cause 

why the stay should be extended. 

տ The defendant must provide the complete address where the defendant will reside 

upon release to the probation office in the district where they will be released because it 

was not included in the motion for sentence reduction.

տ Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the defendant is ordered to serve a “special term” of 

տ probation or տ supervised release of ________ months (not to exceed the unserved 

portion of the original term of imprisonment). 

տ The defendant’s previously imposed conditions of supervised release apply to 

the “special term” of supervision; or 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1694 Filed 06/14/21 Page 2 of 7
3

տ The conditions of the “special term” of supervision are as follows:

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

տ The defendant’s previously imposed conditions of supervised release are unchanged. 

տ The defendant’s previously imposed conditions of supervised release are modified as 

follows:

տ DEFERRED pending supplemental briefing and/or a hearing. The court DIRECTS the United 

States Attorney to file a response on or before _______________________________, along with 

all Bureau of Prisons records (medical, institutional, administrative) relevant to this motion. 

տ DENIED after complete review of the motion on the merits. 

տ FACTORS CONSIDERED (Optional) 

✔

✔

See addendum.

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1695 Filed 06/14/21 Page 3 of 7
4

տ DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the defendant has not exhausted all administrative 

remedies as required in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), nor have 30 days lapsed since receipt of the 

defendant’s request by the warden of the defendant’s facility.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

s/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated:

Terrence G. Berg

June 2, 2021

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1696 Filed 06/14/21 Page 4 of 7
1

In determining whether Mr. Davis is eligible for compassionate 

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the Court must determine (1) whether 

he has exhausted his administrative remedies, (2) whether there are 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” to warrant his release, and (3) 

whether his release would be consistent with the factors set forth in § 

3553(a). The government concedes that Mr. Davis has exhausted his 

administrative remedies. ECF No. 233, PageID.1564. 

The government also concedes, and the Court agrees, that he has 

at least one “extraordinary and compelling” reason warranting release: 

his obesity makes it more likely he could get severely ill from COVID-19 

if he were to contract the disease. Id. at PageID.1575; see also ECF No. 

228, PageID.1525-26 (at the time of sentencing, Mr. Davis was already 

obese, but he has gained weight in prison and now has an estimated BMI 

of 44, though he has not been weighed by BOP in the last two years). 

Although Mr. Davis is only 26 years old, obesity is a particular risk factor 

for young people with COVID-19. See generally Centers for Disease 

Control, People with Certain Medical Conditions (May 4, 2021),

https://perma.cc/F7HZ-PJJP. Mr. Davis’ health problems are 

exacerbated by daily symptoms related to asthma.1 ECF No. 228, 

PageID.1530-31; see also Health Records, ECF Nos. 228-2, 228-5. 

However, most of the factors under § 3553(a) counsel against 

granting this motion. Regarding the nature and circumstances of the 

offense, Mr. Davis was involved in a violent crime with the goal of 

intimidating a witness to prevent him from testifying, a significant and 

dangerous offense that goes “against all the standards of our society that 

involve respect for human life.” Sentencing Tr. 2/1/17, ECF No. 188, 

PageID.957. Mr. Davis indicates the Court should take his age at the 

1 The government asserts that this condition is not severe and is only 

potentially “moderate.” ECF No. 233, PageID.1575. Generally, the CDC 

only finds moderate to severe asthma to make it more likely that an 

individual would get severely ill from COVID-19. Because an 

“extraordinary and compelling” reason for release has already been 

conceded, the Court will not determine whether Mr. Davis’ asthma would 

also qualify on its own; at a minimum, it adds to the “extraordinary and 

compelling” nature of his health issues overall. 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1697 Filed 06/14/21 Page 5 of 7
2

time of the incident and his relative role into account in deciding this 

motion, but the Court already considered these factors in determining his 

original sentence term. The goals of imposing a just sentence and 

encouraging respect for the law, given the seriousness of the conduct, 

would not be served by granting release. This is the factor that weighs 

most heavily in the decision to deny the motion. 

As to the goal of deterrence, Mr. Davis has two co-defendants, one 

of whom had a lesser role and was released in September 2020 and the 

other whose projected release date is in July 2030. Releasing Mr. Davis 

four years before the end of his eleven-year sentence would not be 

consistent with the goal of deterrence because it would significantly 

reduce a sentence imposed to reflect punishment for a serious violent 

crime. Such a reduction would also cause an unwarranted disparity 

between his term and that of the co-defendant who would remain in 

prison until 2030. These factors weigh against granting release.

 

As to the goal of protecting the public from further crimes, Mr. 

Davis is currently at a low-security institution. ECF No. 228, 

PageID.1535. He has not had any history in prison that involves violent 

incidents, though he does have two disciplinary incidents on his record. 

ECF No. 236, PageID.1647. He also indicates a confirmed release plan to 

live with his aunt, and has his mother, partner, and multiple siblings 

living in the area who have supported him throughout his incarceration 

and have indicated they will continue to do so if he is released. ECF No. 

228, PageID.1536-37; see also Letter from Yolandria Gentry, ECF No. 

230-1. He has participated in Release Preparation Program classes and 

completed the Drug Education Program. ECF No. 228, PageID.1535. The 

pre-sentence report notes that Mr. Davis had no known criminal history 

before this case and that he “appears to have far more potential than he 

has demonstrated thus far” and “appears sincerely motivated to be a 

better son and father.” PSR ¶ 72. These developments lessen the weight 

to be given to the factor of protecting society from additional crimes of 

the defendant, because Mr. Davis had shown positive rehabilitative 

efforts while incarcerated. 

 The § 3553(a) factors ultimately counsel against granting release, 

and the Court will deny the motion. But the Court wishes to express 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1698 Filed 06/14/21 Page 6 of 7
3

heightened concern regarding the severity of COVID-19 incidence at FCI 

Milan, where Mr. Davis is incarcerated. Examining the publicly available 

data, FCI Milan experienced large COVID-19 outbreaks in both April 

2020 and November – January 2021. Since the beginning of March, 

inmate active case numbers have been close to zero, though it is unclear 

whether inmates are tested regularly. There are currently four active 

staff cases. See Pandemic Response Oversight, Dashboards of BOP 

COVID-19 Cases (June 1, 2021), https://oig.justice.gov/coronavirus. 

Though Mr. Davis’ risk of contracting COVID-19 at FCI Milan 

seems less significant now, and that factor informs this Court’s decision, 

“it is the obligation of the Bureau of Prisons to ensure that those inmates 

who do not qualify for compassionate release are housed in conditions 

that genuinely reduce the risk of exposure to the virus.” United States v. 

Brown, No. 2:18-CR-20293-TGB, 2021 WL 388465, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 

4, 2021). The situation at FCI Milan is serious enough that the 

Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigated the 

facility in January of this year. Its report finds as ongoing concerns that 

the facility design makes social distancing difficult, that FCI Milan still 

does not test staff for COVID-19, and that there is a need for increased 

cleaning and hand sanitizer supplies. See Pandemic Response Report 21-

032 at 8, 14, 15, https://perma.cc/3T3K-7NJQ. The report also highlights 

several administrative and management failures that exacerbated FCI 

Milan’s COVID-19 outbreaks. The government’s Response in this matter 

does not meaningfully address any of Mr. Davis’ allegations regarding 

the conditions at FCI Milan or the OIG report. 

The Bureau of Prisons has a responsibility to do more for all 

individuals within its facilities to keep them safe, including making 

vaccines immediately available to all inmates. According to its website, 

155 staff members and 535 of 1,279 inmates have received the vaccine at 

FCI Milan. See COVID-19 Vaccine Implementation (June 1, 2021), 

https://perma.cc/6MMC-WE3W. Though it is improving, this number of 

vaccinations is still a disturbingly low figure given the vulnerabilities 

already identified at FCI Milan. Delivery of vaccines to those in this 

facility, including Mr. Davis, must be a top priority. 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 244, PageID.1699 Filed 06/14/21 Page 7 of 7