IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. Case No. 2:17-cr-227

Janay Ruiz

OPINION AND ORDER

By judgment entered on November 29, 2018, defendant was

sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration of forty-six months

on Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18

U.S.C. §371, Count 2, making false, fictitious or fraudulent claims

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §287, Count 3, structuring transactions

in violation of 31 U.S.C. §5324(a)(3), and Count 4, identity theft

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(7). The sentence also included

concurrent three-year terms of supervised release and a restitution

obligation of $1,165,101.19. The defendant reported to begin

serving her sentence on January 15, 2019. The Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”) reports that her projected release date is April 21, 2022. 

See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited April 8, 2021).

On September 25, 2020, defendant filed a motion for

compassionate release from imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.

§3582(c)(1)(A) based on the COVID-19 pandemic. Doc. 42. Counsel

was appointed to represent the defendant. On November 13, 2020,

counsel filed a notice stating that she would not be supplementing

defendant’s motion because defendant had not yet exhausted her

administrative remedies, and that she had advised defendant on how

to complete the exhaustion process. See Doc. 46. The government

also noted that defendant had not exhausted her administrative

remedies. Doc. 48. On December 2, 2020, defendant’s motion was

denied without prejudice. Doc. 49.

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 598
On December 28, 2020, defendant filed additional motions for

compassionate release. Docs. 50 and 51. On January 19, 2021, her

attorney filed a notice indicating that she would be filing a

supplemental motion. Doc. 53. Defendant filed another pro se

motion on March 1, 2021. Doc. 55. Counsel for defendant filed a

supplemental motion on March 54, 2021. Doc. 56.

On March 25, 2021, the government filed a response in

opposition to the motion. Doc. 57. The government acknowledged

that defendant appeared to have exhausted her administrative

remedies, but argued that she failed to show an extraordinary or

compelling reason warranting compassionate release, and that early

release was unwarranted under the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C.

§3553(a). The court will therefore address defendant’s request for

a sentence reduction on the merits, and will consider all of her

previous motions.

I. Standards for Compassionate Release

Under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the court can reduce a sentence under

§3582(c)(1)(A) if the court finds that “extraordinary and

compelling reasons warrant such a reduction[.]” §3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

District courts have full discretion to define what constitutes an

“extraordinary and compelling” reason. See United States v. Jones,

980 F.3d 1109, 1111 (6th Cir. 2020). The court must also consider

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to the extent that they

are applicable. §3582(c)(1)(A). If, after weighing the §3553(a)

factors, the court decides that the motion is well taken, the 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

2

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 599
imprisonment)[.]” §3582(c)(1)(A). The grant of compassionate

release is at the discretion of the court. United States v.

Kincaid, 802 F. App’x 187, 188 (6th Cir. 2020).

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) also requires that “such a reduction is

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission[.]” §3582(c)(1)(A). The government

correctly argues that the defendant’s reasons for a sentence

reduction do not fall within any of the categories discussed in the

policy statements contained in the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, §1B1.13 and Application Note 1 to that section. 

However, the Sixth Circuit has held that the policy statements

contained in §1B1.13 do not apply to cases in which an inmate files

a motion for compassionate release, and that district courts have

full discretion to define what constitutes an “extraordinary and

compelling” reason without consulting the policy statement. See

Jones, 980 F.3d at 1111. Therefore, the court will not base its

decision on the policy statements.

II. Reasons for Compassionate Release

A. Defendant’s Health Concerns

Defendant submits that she should be released due to her

medical concerns. Defendant, who is now 34 years old, argues that

she is at increased risk of serious illness if she contracts 

COVID-19 due to the fact that she is obese. The Presentence

Investigation Report (“PSR”) stated that defendant is 4' 10" tall. 

A medical record dated January 15, 2021, reported that defendant

weighed 149 pounds. Doc. 56, p. 9. The government indicates that

this results in a body mass index (“BMI”) of 31.1 kg/m2. According

to the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), persons with obesity,

3

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 600
that is, a BMI greater than or equal to 30kg/m2 and less than

40kg/m2, are at an increased risk of severe symptoms if they

contract COVID-19. See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/ne ed-extra-precaution s/people-with-medicalconditions.html#obesity (last visited April 8, 2021). Defendant is

just above the threshold for increased risk.

However, the medical records do not report any adverse

physical problems specifically linked to the defendant’s weight. 

See United States v. Tranter, 471 F. Supp.3d 861, 865 (N.D. Ind.

July 8, 2020)(noting that BMI is “a notoriously blunt tool” with

clinical limitations, including its inability to differentiate

between excess fat, muscle and bone mass, and that defendant had

not identified any current medical issues resulting from his

obesity, indicating that it has little adverse effect on his

overall health). A BOP document dated November 17, 2020, stated

that defendant was classified as CARE1 I (healthy or simple chronic

care) and was cleared for food service. Doc. 50, Ex. C. A BOP

record indicated that a general adult medical examination on

February 19, 2020, was without abnormal findings. Doc. 50-1, p.

95. The record includes certificates indicating that defendant

participated in a 5K walking program on November 11, 2019, and half

marathon/10K/5K events on July 20, 2019, and March 8, 2020. Doc.

50, pp. 71, 85, 95. The government has also submitted BOP records

indicating that defendant received her first Moderna COVID-19

vaccine on March 11, 2021, and that she was scheduled to receive

the second vaccine on April 8, 2021. Docs. 57-2 and 57-3. This

significantly mitigates against any potential threat from COVID-19.

Defendant also contends that compassionate release is

4

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 601
warranted due to her mental condition. She has submitted records

describing psychological counseling she received for depression and

anxiety from September, 2015, through November, 2015, following her

delivery of a stillborn baby and her receipt of notification that

her criminal activities were being investigated. See Doc. 50-1. 

However, the medical documents in the record indicate that her next

visit to her therapist was not until November 1, 2018, shortly

before her sentencing hearing. Doc. 50-1, p. 23. Her therapist

noted that she had not seen the defendant for some time, and that

defendant requested a letter of some kind from the therapist for

her court appearance, expressing the hope that a letter would

provide some basis for leniency from the court. This suggests that

defendant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) was not causing

her significant problems.

Defendant states that she has not been receiving any mental

health treatment, claiming that she has only had one psychological

evaluation while in the institution. The judgment shows that the

court did not recommend to the BOP that defendant receive mental

health treatment while incarcerated; rather, participating in

mental health counseling at the direction of the probation officer

is a condition of defendant’s supervised release. The BOP’s

decision denying defendant’s request for compassionate release

noted that it was determined that defendant’s PTSD was not terminal

or debilitating. Doc. 57-1, p. 6. Although the record does not

include any BOP counseling records, the institution was aware of

defendant’s mental health issues, as she was classified as CARE1 -

mental health. Doc. 42-3, p. 2. Another record noted the PTSD

diagnosis. Doc. 50-1, p. 95. Defendant has been able to

5

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 602
participate in mental health-related programs, including an 8-hour

group therapy session entitled “Trauma in Life,” a course from

April to June of 2019 entitled “Art of Healing,” and a “Mind, Body,

Spirit Workshop” on May 5, 2019. Doc. 50, pp. 89, 97, 111.

The court has considered all of the defendant’s health

complaints, and concludes that they do not constitute an

extraordinary and compelling reason for her early release.

B. Rehabilitation While Incarcerated

Defendant has presented evidence concerning her efforts at

rehabilitation. The rehabilitation of a defendant is not, by

itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate

release. See 28 U.S.C. §994(t)(“Rehabilitation of the defendant

alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling

reason.”). However, rehabilitation may be considered along with

other circumstances in deciding whether extraordinary and

compelling reasons for early release exist. See United States v.

Daley, 484 F.Supp.3d 1171, 1175 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Defendant notes

that as of November 17, 2020, she had completed at least 40

classes. Doc. 50, Ex. C. This record also indicated that

defendant is employed in food service and has received satisfactory

evaluations. No disciplinary infractions are noted. While

commendable, this record is not extraordinary. However, the court

will consider this information along with the other circumstances

advanced by defendant.

C. Needs of Defendant’s Children

Defendant also argues that her early release is warranted due

to the needs of her children and their stress due to her

incarceration. Her younger daughter is almost four years old and

6

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 603
resides with defendant’s husband. Defendant’s older daughter is

now 13 years of age. Records indicate that she resides with her

grandmother. Doc. 50-1, p. 48. The older daughter was referred to

counseling after expressing thoughts of suicide at school. Doc.

50, PAGEID 409. This counseling session occurred on February 26,

2018, prior to the commencement of defendant’s incarceration on

January 15, 2019. The record indicates that the daughter reported

that she made a comment about killing herself at school because she

was being bullied by boys who were making mean comments and

throwing things at her, and that defendant planned to send her to

another school. The daughter’s other counseling records span from

July, 2019, through September, 2019. Doc. 50-1, pp. 35-74. These

sessions reflect a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, but the

daughter denied having any suicidal ideations. It is not unusual

for the incarceration of a parent to result in the inmate’s

children experiencing separation anxiety and stress. The

circumstances reflected in these records, while unfortunate, are

not extraordinary.

D. Conclusion

The court finds that the above circumstances relied on by

defendant, considered both individually and in combination, do not

arise to the level of an extraordinary or compelling reason for a

reduction of defendant’s sentence.

III. §3553(a) Factors

The court must also address the applicable §3553(a) factors. 

The offenses in this case were serious. According to the PSR, from

2012 to 2015, defendant participated in scheme to defraud the

Department of Defense by supplying inferior and non-complying

7

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 604
parts. When two of defendant’s companies were debarred from

participating in government contracts, defendant circumvented this

sanction by creating four additional corporations in the name of

friends and relatives. This resulted in a two-level enhancement of

her sentencing range under the Guidelines for the use of

sophisticated means and a two-level enhancement for the violation

of the debarment order. Defendant also started two of these

companies using the identification information of her demented

grandmother and opened bank and credit card accounts with this

information, resulting in another two-level enhancement. Defendant

received a two-level enhancement for an offense involving the

conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury due to

the fact that the parts at issue were critical application items

essential to weapons system performance or operation or the

preservation of the life or safety of armed services personnel. By

supplying defective parts, defendant’s actions put the lives of

military personnel at risk.

Defendant also received a two-level enhancement for being an

organizer, leader, manager or supervisor. Defendant was the

decision maker for the companies. She brought friends and

relatives into the fraudulent scheme. She obtained the majority of

the proceeds, used company bank accounts and credit cards for her

personal use, and directed the development and operation of all her

companies. Her conduct resulted in a total loss of $2,158,647.61

to the Department of Defense. Her restitution obligation is

$1,165,101.19. 

As to the history and characteristics of the defendant, the

PSR reported that defendant was raised in a middle-class family and

8

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 605
had a good upbringing. She had no prior criminal record. She

graduated from high school and has a Bachelor of Arts degree in

psychology. She was employed from 2009 through 2012 at a company

where she learned how to engage in defense contracting. From

September of 2015 through her sentencing, she was employed at a

hospital as an accounts payable coordinator earning over $16 per 

hour. As the government has noted, defendant had the capability of

engaging in legitimate employment, but chose instead to embark on

an elaborate scheme to defraud the Department of Defense. The

defendant’s rehabilitation efforts while in prison, noted above,

have also been considered.

Defendant’s Guideline range was 87-108 months. Defendant

received a substantial benefit from her plea agreement, which

included a binding sentence agreement for a sentence in the range

of 27-46 months. Defendant has now served approximately 27 months,

or approximately 59%, of her 46-month sentence. Defendant will

receive the benefit of good-time credit, and will have served a

little over 39 months, less than half the bottom of the Guideline

range, as of her anticipated release date of April 21, 2022.

The court finds that a reduced sentence would not be

sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s offenses,

promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford

adequate deterrence and protect the public from more crimes by the

defendant. The court concludes that the §3553(a) factors warrant

denying defendant’s motion for a reduced sentence. Even assuming,

arguendo, that defendant’s health conditions and the other

circumstances relied on by defendant, considered together, are

sufficient to constitute an “extraordinary and compelling reason”

9

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 606
for a sentence reduction, that reason is outweighed by the

statutory factors which militate against defendant’s early release.

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motions for 

compassionate release (Docs. 42, 50, 51, 53, 55 and 56) are denied. 

 

Date: April 12, 2021 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

10

Case: 2:17-cr-00227-JLG Doc #: 58 Filed: 04/12/21 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 607