IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

 : CRIMINAL ACTION

v. : 

: NO. 05-295-2 

ANDRE COLEMAN :

MEMORANDUM

SURRICK, J. JANUARY 6, 2021

Andre Coleman has served approximately 60% of his 360-month sentence for robbery 

and attempted robbery. He seeks a compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 180.) Coleman argues that he suffers from underlying medical 

conditions that place him at a high risk of severe illness or death from the current global 

pandemic of COVID-19. He also contends that his extensive rehabilitation while incarcerated 

counsels in favor of release. For the reasons that follow, Coleman’s Motion will be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

Coleman is 60 years old. He suffers from bradycardia (slow heartbeat), obesity, 

hypertension, and hyperlipidemia/high cholesterol. He also has a history of tuberculosis. 

On November 10, 2006, a jury found Coleman guilty of four counts related to a series of 

bank robberies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The jury found Coleman guilty of 

conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; attempted bank robbery or 

aiding and abetting attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2; bank 

robbery or aiding and abetting bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2; and

carrying a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

924(c)(1) and 2. (ECF No. 162.) 

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 8
2

Coleman was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years of 

supervised release. (ECF No. 130.) This significant prison sentence resulted from a finding 

based on prior convictions that Coleman was a career offender. (Presentence Report “PSR” 8 

(on file with Court).) Factoring in earned good conduct time of approximately 22 months, 

Coleman has served 215 (60%) of his 360-month sentence. 

In support of his motion for a compassionate release, Coleman argues that his underlying 

health conditions place him at risk of serious illness or death in light of the global pandemic 

caused by COVID-19. He also contends that a compassionate release is justified due to his 

demonstrated good behavior and rehabilitate efforts, which are shown by numerous letters 

submitted to the Court. These letters are from family members, correctional officers, and prison

staff. They not only reveal the remarkable rehabilitation that Coleman has achieved during his 

over fifteen years in prison, but also his non-violent character. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Applicable Law 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act, the Court may 

modify a term of imprisonment on the defendant’s motion after the defendant has exhausted his 

administrative remedies. In relevant part, § 3582(c)(1) provides that a court:

may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or 

supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved 

portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth 

in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; . . .

and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission.

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 8
3

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1

The phrase “extraordinary and compelling reasons” is not defined by the statute, but 

instead incorporates the commentary to the policy statement contained in § 1B1.13 of the United 

States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Handerhan, 789 F. App’x 924, 925 (3d Cir. 

2019) (citing United States v. Barberena, 694 F.3d 514, 521 n.10 (3d Cir. 2012). Section 1B1.13 

of the Sentencing Guidelines explains that a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) may be 

ordered where a court determines: 

[A]fter considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that—

(1) (A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; . . .

(2) the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the 

community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and

(3) the reduction is consistent with this policy statement.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.

 

Application Note 1 to § 1B1.13 provides four categories of reasons that qualify as 

extraordinary and compelling: (1) the defendant’s medical condition; (2) the defendant’s age; 

(3) the defendant’s family circumstances; or (4) “other reasons” to be determined by the Director 

of the BOP. As a result of amendments to § 3582(c)(1)(A) by the First Step Act, courts now 

conclude that the catch-all category of “other reasons” applies not only to the BOP Director, but 

also to courts. See United States v. Towel, No. 17-519-6, 2020 WL 2992528, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 

1 To exhaust administrative requirements, the statute requires that a defendant first 

“request” that the BOP file a motion with the court for compassionate release on his behalf. 

Only after the defendant has exhausted the administrative rights to appeal the BOP’s denial of 

that request, or after 30 days has passed, whichever is earlier, may the defendant then file his 

own motion with the court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 

(3d Cir. 2020) (stating that remand of request for compassionate release to district court for 

substantive review in light of COVID-19 pandemic would be “futile” because the defendant had 

not complied with the exhaustion requirements under Section 3582). Coleman has complied 

with the exhaustion requirements of § 3582(c)(1)(A). On April 27, 2020, the Warden at FCI Ray 

Brook denied Coleman’s request for compassionate release. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. B.) 

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 8
4

June 4, 2020); United States v. Rodriguez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 392, 399 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2020)

(noting that the Sentencing Commission’s “old policy statement provides helpful guidance, [but] 

. . . does not constrain [a court’s] independent assessment of whether ‘extraordinary and 

compelling reasons’ warrant a sentence reduction under § 3852(c)(1)(A)”).

A legal standard for reviewing compassionate release requests in the context of the 

COVID-19 pandemic may be distilled from a synthesis of the statute, the Sentencing Guidelines, 

and recent court decisions. Courts faced with motions for compassionate release due to COVID19 consider: (1) whether “extraordinary and compelling” reasons exist to reduce the defendant’s 

sentence; (2) whether the defendant is a danger to the community under § 3142(g); and 

(3) whether the § 3553(a) sentencing factors support a sentence reduction. See United States v. 

Pabon, 458 F. Supp. 3d 396, 300 (E.D. Pa. 2020); United States v. Mathe, No. 14-528, 2020 WL 

3542177, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2020); United States v. Hannigan, No. 19-373, 2020 WL 

4015238, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2020).

To establish “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” courts have generally required 

defendants to show two things: (1) advanced age or a serious medical condition that places them 

at a high risk of serious complications or death if infected with COVID-19; and (2) a more than 

mere speculative risk of exposure to the virus at the prison where the inmate is housed. See

United States v. Somerville, 463 F. Supp. 3d 585, 596-97 (W.D. Pa. 2020) (citing cases). 

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons 

Coleman argues that his serious underlying medical conditions-- namely, bradycardia 

(heartbeat), obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia/high cholesterol, and history of tuberculosis—

place him at an increased risk of death or serious illness if he were to contract COVID-19. The 

Government concedes that extraordinary and compelling reasons are present. Specifically, the 

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 8
5

Government acknowledges that Coleman’s obesity is a risk factor identified by the CDC as 

increasing the risk of an adverse outcome from COVID-19. Coleman has a body mass index 

(“BMI”) of 35.6. The CDC recognizes that “obesity,” which is having a BMI of 30 or greater, 

increases a person’s risk of severe illness from COVID-19.2 Coleman’s high blood pressure 

also places him at an increased risk. In addition, FCI Ray Brook is currently experiencing an 

increase in COVID-19 cases. At the time of this Memorandum, 40 inmates (out of 746 total 

inmates housed at FCI Ray Brook) have tested positive for COVID-19. See

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last accessed Jan. 6, 2020). Two staff members have also 

tested positive. Id. We are satisfied that Coleman has presented extraordinary and compelling 

reasons justifying a reduction in his sentence. Nevertheless, we must also consider the § 3535 

sentencing factors. 

C. Danger to the Community and Sentencing Factors under § 3553(a)

In addition to considering whether extraordinary and compelling reasons justify the 

release, we must consider whether Coleman is a danger to the community under § 3142(g), and 

whether the § 3553(a) sentencing factors support a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. 

The Government argues that even though Coleman’s medical conditions place him at an 

increased risk, his compassionate release should nevertheless be denied because Coleman 

continues to be a danger to society and because the sentencing factors support denying relief. 

We disagree. 

“[B]efore granting compassionate release, a district court must consider the factors set 

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3535(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” United States v. Pawlowski, 

2 See Centers for Disease Control, People with Certain Medical Conditions, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medicalconditions.html (last accessed Jan. 5, 2020).

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 5 of 8
6

967 F.3d 327, 329 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13. The sentencing factors courts consider include: the “nature and circumstances of the 

offense,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); the “history and characteristics of the defendant,” id.; and “the 

need for the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for 

the law, . . . to provide just punishment for the offense, . . . to afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct, [and] to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant” id. § 

3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Courts must also consider whether the defendant is a “danger to the safety of 

any other person or to the community.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2). 

The charges here are very serious. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Coleman was found guilty of 

robbing a bank and attempting to rob another bank. A firearm was used in the robbery. 

Coleman acted as the getaway driver. However, these crimes were committed a long time ago. 

Coleman has already spent fifteen years in prison—a substantial punishment for these serious 

crimes. This significant amount of prison time reflects the seriousness of Coleman’s crimes, 

promotes respect for the law, serves as a just punishment, and demonstrates appropriate general 

and specific deterrence for future robbery crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C).

There is nothing in this record to suggest that Coleman is presently a danger to others if 

he were released from prison. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2) (stating 

that before a reducing a sentence, the court must be assured that “the defendant is not a danger to 

the safety of any other person or to the community”). Coleman’s criminal history includes two 

prior drug dealing charges and three prior robberies. However, these crimes were committed 

over three decades ago. We must consider “the most up to date picture” of Coleman’s history 

and characteristics to determine whether he will engage in future criminal conduct. Pepper v. 

United States, 562 U.S. 476, 492 (2011). Coleman has not had one infraction in prison in over 

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 6 of 8
7

ten years. Moreover, numerous corrections officers and prison staff—all of whom are in the 

unique position to witness Coleman firsthand—have advised that he is a “model inmate” who 

“has never displayed signs of being violent or aggressive,” “holds himself in a dignified way and 

has always been respectful to both staff and other inmates.” (Def. Mot. Ex. C.) 

Finally, Coleman has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last fifteen years 

of his incarceration. See Pepper, 562 U.S. at 491 (“[E]vidence of postsentencing rehabilitation 

may be highly relevant to several of the § 3553(a) factors that Congress has expressly instructed 

district courts to consider at sentencing.”). Coleman has taken numerous classes and programs to 

better himself and prepare for life outside of prison. He has maintained a job has head orderly, 

for which he has received outstanding reviews. He is described as a hard-working, dependable, 

admirable, and as a mentor to the younger inmates. We have received over a dozen letters from 

prison staff, including correctional officers, case managers, and counselors. All of these letters 

praise Coleman for his efforts in rehabilitating himself. They also reveal his positivity, despite 

serving a lengthy prison sentence, and his desire to help other inmates. Coleman’s case manager 

stated that he “can affirm that [Coleman] stands out as being a model inmate” who is “motivated 

to help others without the expectation of reward or gain.” (Def’s Mot. Ex. C.) This Court has

received numerous compassionate release requests from inmates across the country. We have 

never seen such an outpouring of support from prison staff for an inmate. 

The letters we have received from family members reveal that Coleman’s family is 

committed to supporting him through his transition out of prison. Coleman intends to live with 

his sister, Arlita Coleman, and her family in Philadelphia. 

After balancing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, we are convinced that Coleman is 

entitled to a compassionate release. 

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 7 of 8
8

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Coleman’s request for a compassionate release is granted. His 

sentence will be reduced to time served. 

An Appropriate Order follows. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ R. Barclay Surrick 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 190 Filed 01/06/21 Page 8 of 8