1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAVON HUMPHREY, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:15-cr-20329-3 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [296] 

Defendant Ravon Humphrey moved for compassionate release under the First 

Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ECF 296, PgID 1582. Defendant offers several 

reasons why he is entitled to a reduced sentence including his hypertension, body 

mass index ("BMI") in the obese range, and asthma. Id. at 1586–90. The Government 

responded that Defendant's conditions were not extraordinary or compelling to 

warrant a reduction in his sentence. ECF 301. For the following reasons, the Court 

will deny the compassionate release motion. 

Under the First Step Act's compassionate release provision, the Court may 

modify Defendant's sentence only if: (1) he has exhausted all administrative 

remedies, or (2) thirty days have passed since the warden received Defendant's 

request for the BOP to bring a motion on his behalf. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The 

exhaustion condition is "mandatory." United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833–34 

(6th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). It is Defendant's 

Case 2:15-cr-20329-SJM-MKM ECF No. 305, PageID.1719 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 5
 2

burden to establish that he has exhausted all his administrative remedies. See United 

States v. Pena-Lora, No. 15-20695, 2020 WL 3886384, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2020) 

(citation omitted). And, most importantly, a defendant fails to exhaust his 

administrative remedies when "the factual basis in the administrative request and 

the motion before the [C]ourt are different." United States v. Asmar, 465 F. Supp. 3d 

716, 719 (E.D. Mich. 2020). 

Because the Government concedes Defendant has exhausted his request for 

compassionate release based on his health, ECF 301, PgID 1627, he must satisfy 

"three substantive requirements" for the Court to grant compassionate release. 

United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1004 (6th Cir. 2020). First, the Court must 

"find[] that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." Id.

at 1003 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Second, the Court must "find that such a 

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission." Id. at 1005 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A) (alterations omitted)); but see 

United States v. Hampton, 985 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2021) (explaining that district 

courts "may now 'skip step two'" because there is no applicable policy statement) 

(quoting United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th Cir. 2020)). Third, the Court 

must consider the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1005 

(quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 

For the first requirement, Defendant must show that "extraordinary and 

compelling reasons" warrant a reduction in sentence. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). "[D]istrict 

courts have discretion to define 'extraordinary and compelling' on their own 

Case 2:15-cr-20329-SJM-MKM ECF No. 305, PageID.1720 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 5
 3

initiative." United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519–20 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Jones, 

980 F.3d at 1111; Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1007). 

 "Several cases in the Eastern District of Michigan have adopted textual 

analyses to determine what reasons are 'extraordinary and compelling[.]'" United 

States v. Powell, No. 2:12-cr-20052-2, 2021 WL 613233, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 

2021) (Murphy, J.) (collecting cases). An "extraordinary and compelling reason" for 

compassionate release is one that is "beyond what is common, and the forcefulness of 

the evidence tends to convince the Court to release the inmate." Id. (internal 

quotation marks and quotations omitted). "Put another way, an extraordinary and 

compelling reason is one that is beyond what is usual, customary, regular, or common, 

and is so great that irreparable harm or injustice would result if the relief is not 

granted." Id. (cleaned up). 

But Defendant's claimed "extraordinary and compelling reasons" are not 

persuasive for three reasons: 

First, there is no evidence in the record to support Defendant's claims of 

asthma. ECF 304-1, PgID 1641 (under seal). There is no evidence in the record to 

support a diagnosis or treatment of that condition. Id. (under seal). And although 

Defendant has a history of hypertension, it is being managed. Id. at 1671 (under seal). 

Next, there is nothing uncommon about the risks that Defendant faces to 

serious illness because of his obesity. Indeed, "[o]besity and overweight are common 

conditions; 42% of American adults are obese and 32% are overweight." United States 

v. Mungarro, No. 07-20076, 2020 WL 6557972, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2020) 

Case 2:15-cr-20329-SJM-MKM ECF No. 305, PageID.1721 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 5
 4

(Cleland, J.) (collecting sources). Obesity is not a compelling reason to warrant 

compassionate release because "[w]ith monitoring and effective lifestyle changes, 

high [BMI] can be improved, if not fully treated." Id. (collecting sources). All told, the 

Court is confident that Defendant can take proactive steps to monitor and reduce his 

BMI. Because of that, Defendant's high BMI does not warrant compassionate release. 

Finally, the Court is not persuaded that Defendant is concerned about the 

actual health risks from re-contracting COVID-19. Defendant can reduce his small 

chance of infection even more through vaccination. See United States v. Toney, No. 

17-20184, 2021 WL 1175410, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2021) (Levy, J.) (collecting 

sources on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines). But Defendant declined to receive 

the COVID-19 vaccine. ECF 304-1, PgID 1697 (under seal). Courts in the Eastern 

District of Michigan routinely "refuse[] to find extraordinary and compelling medical 

circumstances when a defendant declines the COVID-19 vaccine." Toney, 2021 WL 

1175410, at *1; see, e.g., United States v. Austin, No. 15-20609, 2021 WL 1137987, at 

*2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2021) (Cleland, J.). The finding is even more straightforward 

here because Defendant moved for compassionate release after he refused the 

COVID-19 vaccine. ECF 296, PgID 1599 (moving for compassionate release on April 

13, 2021); ECF 304-1, PgID 1697 (refusal to receive the vaccine on February 18, 2021 

and February 26, 2021) (under seal). Altogether, even if there were good reasons to 

refuse a COVID-19 vaccine, Defendant never explained why he did so. In sum, the 

Court will deny compassionate release because no extraordinary or compelling 

reasons warrant Defendant's release. 

Case 2:15-cr-20329-SJM-MKM ECF No. 305, PageID.1722 Filed 06/16/21 Page 4 of 5
 5

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion for 

compassionate release [296] is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 16, 2021 

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

and/or counsel of record on June 16, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/ David P. Parker 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:15-cr-20329-SJM-MKM ECF No. 305, PageID.1723 Filed 06/16/21 Page 5 of 5