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, 

JAQUAN DAVIS

15-CR-20436-TGB

✔

Case 4:15-cr-20436-TGB-MJH ECF No. 70, PageID.635 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 6
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-20436-TGB-MJH ECF No. 70, PageID.636 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 6
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-20436-TGB-MJH ECF No. 70, PageID.637 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 6
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

September 2, 2020

Case 4:15-cr-20436-TGB-MJH ECF No. 70, PageID.638 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 6
ADDENDUM – CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 

As an initial matter, Mr. Davis has exhausted his administrative 

remedies within the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). See ECF No.67, 

PageID.588-92; United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833-34 (6th Cir. 

2020). Because Mr. Davis’ avenues for relief within the BOP have been 

exhausted, the Court has three questions to answer. First, whether 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction in sentence. 

Second, whether Mr. Davis poses a danger to the community. And third, 

whether a sentencing reduction is consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 

factors. United States v. Ammarah, No. 17-20464, 2020 WL 2220008, at 

*4 (E.D. Mich. May 7, 2020). 

The Government concedes that Mr. Davis’ obesity (he has a Body Mass 

Index of 41.1) and asthma treated with albuterol are medical conditions 

that qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons that could justify 

release. ECF No. 69, PageID.625. Nevertheless, the Government argues 

that the Court should not release Mr. Davis because he would be a danger 

to the safety of the community and because a sentence reduction would 

not be consistent with the § 3553 factors. USSG § 1B1.13(2). The Court 

agrees. 

Considering these questions together, the Court notes that Mr. Davis has 

a long history of contacts with the criminal justice system, involving prior 

violent felony convictions. He was detained after his arrest in this matter, 

indicating that there was a finding of danger to the community by the 

magistrate judge. Mr. Davis was also on active probation at the time he 

committed this offense, and a review of his prior convictions shows that 

many of his prior arrests took place when he was on probation or parole. 

Neither his prior sentences nor being subject to court supervision were 

sufficient to deter Mr. Davis from committing crimes in the past, or from 

committing the instant offense. The Court concludes that Mr. Davis’ 

early release would likely pose a danger to the community. 

Consideration of the § 3553 factors also counsels against approving 

compassionate release. Mr. Davis’ offense involved the transportation of 

a 16-year-old girl from Michigan to Georgia to engage in prostitution 

Case 4:15-cr-20436-TGB-MJH ECF No. 70, PageID.639 Filed 09/02/20 Page 5 of 6
throughout multiple states. ECF No. 61. The nature of the offense 

involved the sexual exploitation of a minor. The seriousness of this 

offense and the fact that it involved harm to a victim demonstrate the 

need for a sentence that will be an adequate deterrent both to Mr. Davis 

and to others. As to the applicable guideline range, the Court’s sentence 

of 96 months represented a departure from the 110-120-month range 

found by the Probation Department in the Presentence Report. A further 

reduction would not be not consistent with the goals of sentencing, 

including those of promoting respect for law and protecting society. Mr. 

Davis’ release date is April 4, 2022, which is not far off. See

https://www.bop.gov/imateloc/. And the Court must also recognize and 

commend the rehabilitative efforts Mr. Davis has undertaken since he 

has been in prison. These include getting his GED, taking numerous 

educational and life-skills courses, and creating “The Repair Project,” 

which Mr. Davis describes as a web application and social platform that 

he designed to address the problems of sex trafficking and to create 

community-driven solutions. See ECF No. 67, PageID.599-609. But in 

light of all of the factors described above, a reduction to time served would 

not adequately reflect the serious nature and circumstances of the crime 

or provide Mr. Davis the adequate deterrence to prevent him from 

committing new criminal conduct. 

Having considered all of the above factors, release is not appropriate. 

Case 4:15-cr-20436-TGB-MJH ECF No. 70, PageID.640 Filed 09/02/20 Page 6 of 6