1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 : Case No. 2:18-cr-00052 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : 

MICHAEL ANTHONY BOWMAN, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

OPINION & ORDER 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Michael Anthony Bowman’s Motion for 

Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 47). For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion for 

Compassionate Release is GRANTED. (Id.). 

II. BACKGROUND 

On January 18, 2019, Mr. Bowman was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 

years of supervised released for distribution of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 40). His 

anticipated release date is May 19, 2022. (ECF No. 48). 

Mr. Bowman has a painful and growing hernia in his lower groin. (ECF No. 47). His doctor 

recommended that he receive an open inguinal hernia repair with mesh. (Id. at 3). On August 28, 

2019, however, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) disapproved of the surgery, noting that the 

procedure “was found not to meet BOP criteria at this time.” (Id.). Mr. Bowman continued seeking 

medical advice as his condition worsened. On September 18, 2020, a physician again 

recommended surgery. (Id. at 4). As of December 2020, Mr. Bowman continues to wait for the 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 313
2 

recommended treatment and has received no written decision about his request for surgery from 

BOP. (Id.). In addition, Mr. Bowman has prediabetes, hypertension, and is a former heavy smoker, 

indicating his susceptibility to severe illness if he contracted COVID-19. (Id.). 

On January 18, 2021, the Government filed a Response in Opposition. (ECF No. 48). The 

Government opposes release because the BOP is in a better position than courts to assess the 

multiple factors at issue in release determinations and that Mr. Bowman has not demonstrated that 

release is warranted under § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Id.). 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a sentencing court may “reduce the term of 

imprisonment” of a defendant for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” once the exhaustion 

requirement or 30-day waiting requirement has been satisfied. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United 

States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020). A district court’s decision under § 

3582(c)(1)(A) will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a district court “must supply ‘specific 

factual reasons’” in support of its compassionate release decision. United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 

1098, 1113 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020). In United States v. Jones, the Sixth Circuit recently clarified 

the mechanics of compassionate review under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, where an incarcerated person has 

brought a motion on his own behalf. In Jones, the Sixth Circuit announced that U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.13 is no longer considered an “applicable” policy statement “in cases where incarcerated 

persons file their own motions in district court for compassionate release.” Id. at 1101. 

The Jones court set forth a three-step framework for district courts to follow when 

considering motions for compassionate release. Id. at 1103. First, district courts must find whether 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction. Id. Second, a court must 

determine whether the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 314
3 

Sentencing Commission. Id. Given that the Jones court found that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 was no 

longer applicable to motions brought by incarcerated persons on their own behalf, federal district 

courts may now skip this step in those instances and “have full discretion to define ‘extraordinary 

and compelling’ without consulting the policy statement.” Id. at 1109. Third, a court must consider 

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determine whether, in the court's discretion, the 

reduction authorized by the statute is “warranted in whole or in part under the particular 

circumstances of the case.” Id. at *6 (quoting Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)). 

IV. LAW & ANALYSIS 

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a sentencing court may reduce a term of 

imprisonment, but only “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.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A); see also Alam, 960 F.3d at 832. The Sixth Circuit held that this requirement is 

not a jurisdictional rule, but a claim-processing rule that “binds the courts only when properly 

asserted and not forfeited.” Alam, 960 F.3d at 833. In Alam, the statute’s requirement was 

characterized by the Sixth Circuit as a “mandatory condition.” Id. at 834.Here, Mr. Bowman 

submitted a request to the warden for release on September 30, 2020, and it has gone unanswered. 

(ECF No. 47). He moved for compassionate release on December 9, 2020. Thus, the 

administrative-exhaustion requirement is fulfilled. 

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons 

Under the analysis set forth in Jones, this Court must first determine whether 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 315
4 

3852(c)(1)(A)(i). This court has “full discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’” without 

consulting the policy statement § 1B1.13.” Jones, 2020 WL 6817488, at *9. 

In his Motion, Mr. Bowman seeks release for two health-related reasons. First, multiple 

medical professionals have recommended surgery for his hernia treatment, but thus far, the BOP 

has not provided any guidance on scheduling this needed surgical treatment. Second, Mr. Bowman 

has prediabetes, hypertension, and is a former heavy smoker, thus placing him among the 

individuals identified by the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) who might be at an increased 

risk for severe illness from COVID-19.1 

In opposition, the Government argues that Mr. Bowman has not demonstrated 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying his release because his hernia should be treated 

in the BOP system. The Government does not respond directly to Mr. Bowman’s discussion of his 

other health conditions—i.e., prediabetes, hypertension, and a history of heavy smoking. 

As an initial matter, this Court recognizes the devastating impact of the COVID-19 

pandemic and that prison populations are subject to heightened vulnerability. The spread of 

COVID-19 in prisons has been well documented, and Lexington FMC, where Mr. Bowman is 

confined, has eighteen active cases of COVID-19 among the incarcerated population and five 

active cases among staff as of February 3, 2021. Nine incarcerated people have also died of 

COVID-19 in the care of Lexington FMC, and 732 incarcerated individuals and 70 staff members 

have contracted the virus since the pandemic began, placing it among the worst COVID outbreaks 

in federal prisons.2

1 See CDC, People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/needextra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html, last accessed 3/5/2021 at 4:39 PM. 2 See BOP, COVID-19 Coronavirus, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus, last accessed 3/5/2021at 4:39 PM. 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 316
5 

With respect to Mr. Bowman’s prediabetes, hypertension, and a history of heavy smoking, 

the CDC has indicated that individuals with these conditions might be at a higher risk for severe 

illness from COVID-19.3

 Mr. Bowman’s hernia does not place him at a greater risk for severe 

illness from COVID-19, but he does not argue that it does. Rather, he seeks release for a muchneeded surgery, which is particularly urgent given that BOP has been unable to schedule this 

surgery while managing its pandemic response efforts. 

This Court has discretion to determine for itself whether an incarcerated person has 

presented “extraordinary and compelling reasons” within the meaning of the First Step Act, and 

this Court finds that the need for surgery coupled with the fact that the BOP has not yet responded 

to Mr. Bowman’s request for medical attention constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 

(See ECF No. 47 at 3 (“[A]ccording to an Administrative Note dated August 28, 2019, the BOP 

disapproved the surgery, noting only that the procedure ‘was found not to meet BOP criteria at this 

time’”). In addition, as far as the COVID-19 pandemic is concerned, Mr. Bowman’s prediabetes, 

hypertension, and history of heavy smoking might place him at an increased risk of severe illness 

or death if he contracts COVID-19 and therefore constitute “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” as well. 

C. Section 3553 Sentencing Factors Analysis 

When an incarcerated person demonstrates “extraordinary and compelling reasons” which 

could justify a reduction in sentence, this Court must also consider “all relevant § 3553(a) factors 

before rendering a compassionate release decision.” Jones, 2020 WL 6817488, at *11. A court 

does not need to “specifically articulat[e]” every single § 3553(a) factor in its analysis; rather, the 

record “as a whole” must indicate that the pertinent factors were taken into account by the 

3 See CDC, People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/needextra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html, last accessed 3/5/2021 at 4:39 PM. 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 317
6 

court. Id. For a reviewing court, the record as a whole will constitute both the original sentencing 

proceeding and the compassionate release decision. Id. at *11–12. 

Section 3553(a) instructs a court to consider: 

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the 

defendant; 

(2) the need for the sentence imposed— 

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to 

provide just punishment for the offense; 

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and 

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, 

medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; 

(3) the kinds of sentences available; 

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for ... the applicable category 

of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the 

guidelines ...; 

(5) any pertinent policy statement ... issued by the Sentencing Commission ...; 

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar 

records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and the need to provide 

restitution to any victims of the offense. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

In support of his Motion for Compassionate Release, Mr. Bowman argues that a reduction 

in his sentence would not diminish the seriousness of the offense or present a risk to the public. 

While incarcerated, Mr. Bowman’s conduct has been nothing short of exemplary. He has 

maintained clear conduct throughout his term of incarceration, held various jobs, completed 

several education courses, including the 500-hour Dual Diagnosis Residential Drug Abuse 

Treatment Program, even becoming a mentor to other program participants. (ECF No. 47 at 12). 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 318
7 

He also completed his Financial Responsibility Program obligations. (Id.). Outside of his 

incarceration, Mr. Bowman is the only surviving parent to his young daughter and, if released, 

would return to his home in Columbus, Ohio, to care for his daughter. 

Mr. Bowman also acknowledges that he was convicted for a serious offense involving 

firearms that warranted a significant penalty, but notes that none of the firearms were used to 

threaten or harm anyone. (Id.). 

The Government opposes release. It notes that during the execution of the search warrant, 

a loaded handgun was located near Mr. Bowman; as a convicted felon, he is not permitted to be in 

possession of any type of firearms. (ECF No. 48 at 4). The search warrant also resulted in the 

discovery of additional handguns, along with drugs, drug paraphernalia, and U.S. currency. (Id. at 

5). 

Mr. Bowman is set to be released on May 19, 2022. (ECF No. 48 at 4). On June 11, 2018, 

Mr. Bowman pled guilty to Ct. 1, Possession with Intent to Distribute more than 500 grams of 

Cocaine, in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) and (841(b)(1)(b)(ii), and to Ct. 2, Possession of a 

Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 USC 924(c)(1)(a)(i). At his 

sentencing hearing, this Court considered the Defendant’s mental health, mitigating circumstances 

surrounding the underlying events, and the nature and extent of the Defendant’s criminal record. 

(ECF No. 24). This Court also considered the need to protect the public safety in imposing a 

sentence. (Id.). In imposing its sentence, this Court considered all of the Section 3553(a) factors, 

but emphasized seriousness of the offense, the nature and characteristics of the defendant including 

his age, mental health condition, and extensive criminal record, and the need to protect public 

safety. (Id.). 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 319
8 

This Court must consider both the health risk to the individual and the interests served by 

continued incarceration based on the nature and seriousness of the offense. 

On the one hand, the underlying offense to which Mr. Bowman pled guilty is extremely 

serious. On the other hand, the severity of Mr. Bowman’s health conditions, the urgency of his 

needed surgery, and his significant post-offense rehabilitative efforts are dispositive here. 

Moreover, his other health conditions undoubtedly put him at a much greater risk for severe illness 

if he contracts COVID-19, and this risk is non-trivial given the how many incarcerated individuals 

and staff have fallen ill at Lexington FMC. This Court, therefore, finds that the retribution, 

deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation interests served by the original sentence counsel in 

favor of early release in this case. For these reasons, Mr. Bowman’s Motion for Compassionate 

Release, (ECF No. 47), is GRANTED. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Mr. Bowman’s Motion for Compassionate Release is GRANTED. (ECF 

No. 47). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the defendant is ordered to serve a “special term” of 

supervised release not to exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment, i.e., 

14 months. 

As a condition of the “special term” of supervised release, Mr. Bowman shall participate 

in the Home Incarceration component of the location monitoring program for a period up to the 

remaining balance of his prison sentence. While on home incarceration in the location monitoring 

program, you are restricted to your residence at all times, except for medical necessities, court 

appearances or other activities specifically approved by the court. Mr. Bowman shall be monitored 

by the use of technology as determined by the probation officer. 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 320
9 

Mr. Bowman shall abide by all of the requirements established by the probation office related to 

the use of this location monitoring technology. He shall pay all or part of the costs of location 

monitoring based on his ability to pay as determined by the probation officer. 

Following the “special term” of supervised release, the originally imposed term of five 

years of supervised release shall commence. The previously imposed conditions of supervised 

release are unchanged. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: March 5, 2021 

Case: 2:18-cr-00052-ALM Doc #: 50 Filed: 03/05/21 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 321