IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Case No. l:I7-cr-97-I

Judge Susan J. DIott

Order Denying Motion for

Compassionate Release

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

V.

Tramel Watson,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Tramel Watson's Motion for

Compassionate Release (Doc. 35), to which the Government responded in opposition (Doc. 36).'

For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY Watson's Motion for Compassionate Release.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 16,2017, Watson was charged in a two-count Indictment. (Doc. 1.) He was

charged in Count 1 with distribution and attempt to distribute mixtures and substances containing

a detectable amoimt of carfentanil in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846.

He was charged in Count 2 with operating a drug involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

856(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On January 23,2018, Watson pled guilty to Count 1 of the

Indictment. (Docs. 18,19.) On August 6,2018, Watson was sentenced to 84 months in prison.

(Doc. 27.) Watson is incarcerated at Allenwood Low FCI and has an estimated release date of

July 9,2023. Federal BOP, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateIoc' (last viewed Nov.

23,2021).

' The Court is also in receipt of a letter fkim Watson complaining about his attorney. Watson complains about the

draft motion for compassionate release his attorney provided him and his attorney's delay in filing a motion on his

behalf. He stated he would prefer another attorney file his motion for compassionate release. Thereafter, Watson's

attorney contacted the Court and Government to convey that he was working on a motion and subsequently filed the

Motion for Compassionate Release now before the Court. There is no issue for the Court to address as the necessary

motion has been filed.

1

Case: 1:17-cr-00097-SJD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/24/21 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 232
II. STANDARD OF LAW

The Court lacks authority to resentence a defendant, except as permitted by statute.

United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743,748-49 (6th Cir. 2008). The compassionate release

provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) were "intended to be a 'safety valve' to reduce a

sentence in the 'unusual case in which the defendant's circumstances are so changed, such as by

terminal illness, that it would be inequitable to continue the confinement of the prisoner.'"

United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421,430 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting S. Rep. 98-225, at

121 (1983)). A defendant seeking sentence reduction bears the burden of proving entitlement to

compassionate release. Id. at 426; United States v. Hill, No. 5:14CR337,2020 WL 5104477, at

*1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2020). Section 3582(c) provides as follows:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed

except that—

(1) in any case—

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon

motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative

rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the

defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by

the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, 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 [18 U.S.C.

§] 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.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory claim-processing rule. United

States V. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833-34 (6th Cir. 2020). This claim-processing rule "serves

important purposes" including that "prison administrators can prioritize the most urgent claims"

Case: 1:17-cr-00097-SJD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/24/21 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 233
and "investigate the gravity of the conditions supporting compassionate release and the

likelihood that the conditions will persist." Id. at 835. Any compassionate release motion filed

less than 30 days after the warden receives a compassionate release request must be denied

without prejudice. Id. at 836.

Assuming that the inmate has exhausted administrative remedies, the district court must

(1) determine whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a reduction and (2) weigh

the relevant sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098,1101,

1108 (6th Cir. 2020).^ "Congress did not define what constitutes an 'extraordinary and

compelling reason,' except to state that '[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be

considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.'" United States v. Hunter, 12 F.4th 555, 561

(6th Cir. Aug. 30,2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). Courts generally have discretion to define

what constitutes "extraordinary and compelling" reasons. Id. at 562. Nonetheless, the Sixth

Circuit has defined two restrictions on that discretion;

First, non-retroactive changes in the law, whether alone or in combination with

other personal factors, are not "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a

sentence reduction. Second, facts that existed when the defendant was sentenced

cannot later be construed as "extraordinary and compelling" justifications for a

sentence reduction.

Id.

The § 3553 factors referenced in the statute include (1) the nature and circumstances of

the offense and the defendant's history and characteristics; (2) the need for the sentence imposed

to reflect the seriousness of the offense; (3) the need to protect the public from fiirther crimes of

the defendant; (4) the sentencing guideline range; and (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence

^ The Sixth Circuit determined in Jones that the only U.S. Sentencing Commission Policy Statement potentially

applicable to motions for compassionate release—U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13—is inapplicable to cases filed by federal

inmates. 980 F.3d at 1109,1111. Therefore, the district court has fiili discretion to define "extraordinary and

compelling reasons" without reference to the policy statement in § IB1.13. /c/. at 1111; United States v. Ellas, 984

F.3d 516, 519-20 (6th Cir. Jan. 6,2021).

Case: 1:17-cr-00097-SJD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/24/21 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 234
disparities among defendants with similar records guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

These factors implicitly allow a district court to consider the amount of time served when

determining if a reduction in sentence is appropriate. See United States v. Kincaid, 802 F. App'x

187, 188 (6th Cir. 2020). Also, district courts can consider the non-retroactive changes in law

relevant to sentencing as part of its weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States

V. Jarvis, 999 F.3d 442,445 (6th Cir. June 3,2021), petition for cert, filed. No. 21-568 (U.S. Oct.

15,2021). District courts are encouraged to be "explicit and particular with their factual

reasoning" when they consider the § 3553(a) factors. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1113.

III. ANALYSIS

It is unclear whether Watson exhausted his administrative prerequisites before filing his

Motion for Compassionate Release.^ Nonetheless, Watson's Motion fails on the merits. He

seeks compassionate release on grounds that he has medical conditions that put him at risk for

severe illness or death from COVlD-19. His prison medical records support that he suffers from

asthma and rheumatoid arthritis. (Doc. 35-1.) The Centers for Disease Control has identified

chronic lung diseases, including moderate to severe asthma, as a condition that can make adults

"more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19." CDC, People with Certain Medical

Conditions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-withmedical-conditions.html (last viewed Nov. 23,2021). The Court need not address hypothetical

risks in this case, however.

Watson tested positive for COVlD-19 on December 17,2020 during an outbreak in his

housing unit. (Doc. 35-1 at PagelD 157.) Although initially asymptomatic, Watson later

developed symptoms while in isolation. (Id. at PagelD 148-51,220-26.) Nonetheless, his

' The Court could not locate, nor did Watson cite, any record evidence addressing whether he petitioned his Warden

for early release and/or exhausted his administrative remedies.

Case: 1:17-cr-00097-SJD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/24/21 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 235
symptoms subsided and he was cleared from isolation on December 28,2020. {Id. at PagelD

148.) During a clinical encounter with health services on April 26,2021, Watson reported

needing to use his albuterol twice daily for shortness of breath and with activity since having

COVID-19 in December 2020. {Id. at PagelD 184.) As of June 4,2021, Watson continued to be

treated for asthma and rheumatoid arthritis. {Id. at PagelD 183.) However, on June 7,2021,

Watson reported that he had not used his albuterol since the last time he was seen by health

services and denied shortness of breath, nighttime awakening, wheezing, symptoms with

activity, and coughing. {Id. at PagelD 185.) Thus, his symptoms appear to be well-managed at

this time. Furthermore, Watson received the two-shot regime of the Modema vaccination for

COVlD-19 on July 29,2021 and August 25,2021. {Id. at PagelD 158.)

Watson argues that perceived long-haul COVlD-19 symptoms and the ongoing risk of

contracting COVlD-19 while incarcerated place him at severe risk of serious illness. But

Watson's "access to the COVlD-19 vaccine substantially undermines his request for a sentence

reduction." United States v. Lemonsy 15 F.4th 747,751 (6th Cir. Oct. 8,2021). The Sixth

Circuit has held that COVlD-19 does not present an extraordinary and compelling reason for

sentence reduction once a defendant has access to the vaccine. Id. The Sixth Circuit reasoned:

[W]e agree with the Seventh Circuit that a defendant's incarceration during the

COVlD-19 pandemic—when the defendant has access to the COVlD-19

vaccine—does not present an "extraordinary and compelling reason" warranting a

sentence reduction. United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021)

(Easterbrook, J.). Afrer all, with access to the vaccine, an inmate largely faces the

same risk from COVlD-19 as those who are not incarcerated. To be sure, inmates

in some respects face social distancing challenges distinct from those of the

general public (although perhaps not entirely unlike students in dorm rooms,

individuals in medical and assisted care facilities, and even residents of densely

occupied apartment complexes). But to the extent prisons do offer some unique

challenges, the vaccine now significantly reduces the risks associated with

COVlD-19. And at this intersection of law and science, we find wisdom in Judge

Easterbrook's assessment that "for people living in close quarters, vaccines offer

relief far more effective than a judicial order." Id.

Case: 1:17-cr-00097-SJD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/24/21 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 236
Lemons, 15 F.4th at 751; see also United States v. Trayior, 16 F.4th 485, 487 (6th Cir. Nov. 1,

2021) (following Lemons and denying compassionate release to an inmate who was fiilly

vaccinated). In this case, where Watson has recovered from COVlD-19 and is fully vaccinated

against COVID-19, C0VID-I9 docs not present an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant

his compassionate release from prison. His Motion must therefore be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Watson's Motion for Compassionate Release (Doc. 35) is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

Susan J. Dlott

United States District Judge

Case: 1:17-cr-00097-SJD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/24/21 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 237