UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GERALD DANESHVAR, 

 Petitioner, Case Number 19-13649 

v. Criminal Case Number 15-20362 

 Honorable David M. Lawson 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Respondent. 

____________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND 

 Following a jury trial, petitioner Gerald Daneshvar, a former physician, was convicted of 

conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The conviction was 

based on a scheme to overbill Medicare for visits to homebound patients. Daneshvar received a 

below-guidelines prison sentence of 24 months and was ordered to pay $900,000 in restitution. 

His conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Daneshvar, 925 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2019). 

His scheduled release date is January 2021. 

 On December 11, 2019, Daneshvar filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255, in which he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate and 

introduce evidence at trial, failing to call witnesses as part of his defense, failing to impeach 

government witnesses and object to Brady and Kastigar violations, and failing to raise relevant 

constitutional claims on appeal. 

 Before the Court is Daneshvar’s motion for release on bond pending resolution of his 

section 2255 motion. The motion is based primarily on his fear of continued incarceration during 

the COVID-19 pandemic. Daneshvar has not satisfied the high standard for release on bond 

pending the outcome of his section 2255 motion. The motion will therefore be denied. 

Case 2:15-cr-20362-DML-EAS ECF No. 149, PageID.2352 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 3
-2- 

 In order to secure release on bond pending a decision on the merits of a section 2255 

motion, a petitioner must show that: (1) the section 2255 motion presents a “substantial claim of 

law based on the facts surrounding the petition;” and (2) circumstances which make the motion 

“exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Dotson v. Clark, 900 

F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (Harlan, J., in 

chambers)). The power to release a petitioner on bond should be exercised sparingly. Ibid. “There 

will be few occasions where a prisoner will meet this standard.” Ibid.; see also Wingo v. United 

States, 341 F. App’x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2009). Because a habeas petitioner “is appealing a 

presumptively valid . . . conviction, . . . it will indeed be the very unusual case where a habeas 

petitioner is admitted to [bond] prior to a decision on the merits in the habeas case.” Lee v. Jabe, 

989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993). 

 Although Daneshvar argues that he is entitled to bond because his ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim has merit, the thrust of his motion is directed at the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Daneshvar says that he is a non-violent offender with diabetes, which, in the context of COVID19, presents an exceptional circumstance justifying his release. 

 Objectively, the health risks posed by COVID-19 are abundantly clear. And no one 

disputes that the manner in which inmates are housed increases the risk of exposure to the novel 

coronavirus. See Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, Ctrs. for Disease Control (Mar. 23, 2020), 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html. However, Daneshvar has not provided any facts indicating that the 

facility where he is housed, FCI Morgantown, presents a significant specific danger. In a letter 

attached to his motion, Daneshvar says that two guards at his compound have tested positive for 

Case 2:15-cr-20362-DML-EAS ECF No. 149, PageID.2353 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 3
-3- 

COVID-19 and he describes in general the close living conditions at Morgantown. Daneshvar’s 

letter is anecdotal and furnishes no insight on how Morgantown is handling inmates in light of this 

pandemic or proof as to the number of cases reported at the facility. 

 Daneshvar also says that he falls under a high-risk category because he suffers from 

diabetes. Diabetes has been recognized as posing a potential greater risk from the virus. See 

People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention 

(Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-athigher-risk.html. While Daneshvar may suffer from diabetes, the presence of this risk factor alone 

is insufficient to warrant his release. 

 A final point: the government in its response says that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) plans 

to release Daneshvar to home confinement on April 30, 2020, unless he becomes symptomatic 

while in quarantine. Under current BOP procedure, Daneshvar will be quarantined for 14 days 

prior to his release to home confinement. Assuming the government’s information is correct, 

Daneshvar will have entered quarantine as of April 16, 2020. This, coupled with his anticipated 

release by the end of the month, will render Daneshvar’s bond request moot in the coming days. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Daneshvar’s request for release on bond (ECF No. 147) 

is DENIED. 

 s/David M. Lawson 

 DAVID. M. LAWSON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: April 20, 2020 

Case 2:15-cr-20362-DML-EAS ECF No. 149, PageID.2354 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 3