IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. Case No. 2:18-cr-111

James A. Imes

OPINION AND ORDER

By judgment entered on July 29, 2019, defendant was sentenced

to terms of incarceration of 120 months on Count 1, operating a

chop shop in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2322, Count 2, trafficking in

motor vehicle parts with falsified, altered or removed numbers in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §2321, and Count 3, altering or removing

motor vehicle identification numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§511. Defendant was also sentenced to a term of incarceration of

60 months on Count 4, the knowing venting of HCFCs into the

environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. §7413. The judgment

specified that all terms of incarceration would run concurrently. 

Defendant was also sentenced to four 3-year terms of supervised

release, to run concurrently. Defendant’s proposed release date is

May 17, 2027. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited

December 17, 2020).

On October 21, 2020, defendant, through counsel, filed a

motion for a sentence reduction (compassionate release) under 18

U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018,

citing the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in light of

defendant’s medical conditions. See Doc. 51. The government filed

a response on November 16, 2020. Doc. 53. The government agreed

that defendant had exhausted his administrative remedies, but

argued that this court should defer to the process of the Bureau of

Prisons (“BOP”) for determining eligibility for release on home

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 497
confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic

Security Act (“CARES Act”), §12003(b)(2). The government further

argued that defendant failed to show an extraordinary and

compelling reason to release him due to his medical conditions, and

that the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) weigh against

defendant’s early release. Defendant filed a reply. See Docs. 54,

57 and 58. The court will now consider defendant’s motion.

I. Standards for Compassionate Release

Under 18 U.S.C. §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[.]” 

18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 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).1 District courts may deny relief

under §3582(c)(1)(A) based upon the court’s discretionary balancing

of the §3553(a) factors even if extraordinary and compelling

reasons would otherwise justify relief. United States v. Ruffin,

978 F.3d 1000, 1008 (6th Cir. 2020). 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

1Section 3582(c)(1)(A) further provides that the court must

find “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]” 18 U.S.C.

§3582(c)(1)(A). However, the Sixth Circuit has held that the

policy statement contained in United States Sentencing Guidelines

§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 “extraordinary and compelling” without

consulting the policy statement. See United States v. Jones, 980

F.3d 1109, 1111 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020).

2

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 498
that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of

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).

II. Defendant’s Request for Release

Defendant cites the dangers posed by COVID-19 to the inmate

population. However, §3582(c)(1)(A) “does not constitute a getout-of-jail card.” United States v. Brady, S2 18 Cr. 316 (PAC),

2020 WL 2512100, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2020). Rather,

“compassionate release motions amid the COVID-19 pandemic have

required a ‘fact-intensive’ inquiry ... made in the ‘unique

circumstances’ and ‘context’ of each individual defendant.” Id.,

citing United States v. Shakur, No. 82 CR 312 (CSH), 2020 WL

1911224, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020) and United States v. Hart,

17 Cr. 248 (VSB), 2020 WL 1989299, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020)).

Defendant argues that he has a serious risk from COVID-19 due

to his medical conditions. Defendant is 59 years old. He first

notes his obesity. His weight has varied over time. On October 9,

2019, defendant was reported as being 72.8 inches tall and weighing

369 pounds. Doc. 57, p. 22. As of August 6, 2020, defendant’s

weight was recorded at 386 pounds. Doc. 58, p. 104. His body mass

index has been reported at BMI 46.2. Doc. 58, p. 208. According

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

obesity, that is, a body mass index greater than 40kg/m, are at an

increased risk of severe symptoms if they contract COVID-19. See

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extraprecautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html#obesity (last

visited December 18, 2020). However, the medical records do not

3

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 499
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). No physical limitations were noted, and

defendant has no work restrictions. Doc. 57, p. 45. He is

currently assigned to the grounds maintenance crew, and his work

duties include operating a farm tractor and riding mower, using a

weed eater, and blowing and picking up litter, limbs, twigs and

branches. Doc. 54-1.

Defendant relies on his status as a former smoker. The CDC

has reported that being a current or former smoker increases the

risk of severe illness from COVID-19. See

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extraprecautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html#smoking (last

visited December 18, 2020). The presentence investigation report

(“PSR”) dated August 31, 2018, notes defendant’s statement that he

had not smoked for 5 years. There is no evidence that defendant

has smoked since being confined in a federal institution in 2014. 

See Brooks v. Menifer, No. CV07-0131-A, 2009 WL 6006283, at *6

(W.D. La. Sept. 25, 2009)(noting that the BOP adopted a no-smoking

policy making all BOP facilities smoke-free environments as of

March 1, 2006).

The medical records contain no report of any adverse physical

symptoms which defendant is currently experiencing or has

4

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 500
experienced in the past due to his smoking. In October of 2019,

defendant denied having any respiratory problems, and his

respiratory system was noted to be within normal limits, with clear

lungs. Doc. 57, pp. 11, 24, 49, 62. In Tranter, 471 F.Supp. 3d at

865, the court rejected defendant’s argument that his status as a

former smoker placed him at increased risk, noting that defendant

had identified no adverse health effects resulting from his smoking

past and that, according to the CDC, his risk of disease from

smoking dropped every day he remained smoke-free)(citation

omitted).

Defendant refers to a history of heart disease. Although

defendant reported that his father and mother had heart disease,

the medical records fail to indicate that defendant himself has a

history of heart disease. During an examination on October 8,

2019, defendant denied having any cardiovascular problems. Doc.

57, p. 11. His cardiovascular system was found to be within normal

limits. Doc. 57, p. 24. A chest x-ray on October 29, 2019,

revealed that his heart size was normal to borderline enlarged,

with no venous congestion, no acute cardiopulmonary disease, and no

evidence of congestive heart failure. Doc. 57, p. 62. a

cardiovascular exam on May 13, 2020, revealed a regular rate and

rhythm with normal S1 and S2. Doc. 58, p. 63.

Defendant does have a history of high blood pressure. 

According to the CDC, persons with high blood pressure might have

an increased risk of severe symptoms with COVID-19. See

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extraprecautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (last visited

December 18, 2020). However, the medical records indicate that

5

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 501
this condition appears to be well managed with prescription

medication. The records contain no indication that defendant’s

blood pressure is dangerously high. On August 6, 2020, defendant

reported that he misses taking the blood pressure medication

because he is overly cautious about taking medications. Doc. 58,

p. 2. This suggests that defendant does not experience severe

symptoms which would motivate him not to skip his blood pressure

medication.

The medical records also document defendant’s laporascopic

surgery to repair a ventral hernia in May of 2020. See Doc. 58. 

These records reflect that there were no complications during

surgery. Doc. 58, p. 208. With the exception of a small infected

area which had to be drained on June 18, 2020, and was successfully

treated with antibiotics, the incision was well healed. Doc. 58,

pp. 70, 145, 160. Defendant recovered to the extent that he is

now assigned to a grounds maintenance work crew. Doc. 54-1.

Defendant relies on the presence of COVID-19 in the prisons. 

However, the BOP does not report any cases of COVID-19 at

Montgomery RRM, where defendant is currently housed. See

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited December 18, 2020). 

Further, the BOP has taken steps to address the COVID-19 emergency. 

Early in the pandemic, the BOP implemented a modified operation

plan. See https://bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19-status.jsp (last

checked December 18, 2020). Under this plan, social visits at the

institutions are precluded, inmate internal movement has been

suspended, staff travel and training has been suspended, enhanced

health screening of staff has been implemented, newly arriving

inmates are processed through quarantine or jail/detention sites

6

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 502
and are screened for COVID, asymptomatic inmates with exposure to

risk factors are quarantined, and symptomatic inmates with exposure

risk factors are isolated and tested. One example of BOP measures

to address the pandemic is found in a record which documents that

when defendant was released from the hospital following his hernia

surgery and returned to the institution, he was held in quarantine

for a period of time, where he was monitored for signs of COVID-19

symptoms and given a COVID-19 test. Doc. 58, p. 36. 

Upon his release, defendant plans to reside with his mother in

Galloway, Ohio, which is located in Franklin County, Ohio. The

Ohio Department of Health reports that as of December 18, 2020,

there have been 72,561 COVID-19 cases in Franklin County, and 1,615

cases in the zip code where Galloway is located. See

https://www.coronavirus.ohio.gov (last checked December 18,

2020).2 The defendant’s risk of infection may be less in prison

than the risk he would face if he is released to the community.

Defendant’s medical conditions, viewed individually and

cumulatively with the potential risks of COVID-19, do not

constitute an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for his early

release.

III. §3553(a) Factors 

The court is also required to consider the relevant factors in

§3553(a). These were serious offenses. The statutory maximum

penalty for Count 1 was 15 years, and the statutory maximum penalty

2This court can take judicial notice of the records of state

agencies. See Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las Vegas

Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2004)(citing Kottle

v. Northwest Kidney Centers, 146 F.3d 1056, 1064 n. 7 (9th Cir.

1988)(state health department records were properly judicially

noticed)).

7

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 503
for Counts 2 and 3 was 10 years. In calculating defendant’s

guideline range, the probation officer applied enhancements for

being a leader or organizer of five or more persons, using his son,

who was less than 18 years of age at that time, to assist in

committing the offense, and obstruction of justice. The guideline

range in defendant’s case was 121 to 151 months. The court could

have imposed a higher sentence on Count 1, but imposed the more

lenient sentence of 120 months on Counts 1, 2 and 3.

As to the history and characteristics of the defendant, the

defendant had prior convictions for theft in 1990, contributing to

the delinquency of a minor in 1991, and criminal mischief and theft

in 1997, which were assigned no criminal history points. He was

also convicted of receiving stolen property in 2001, unauthorized

use of property in 2005, and escape in 2006. This resulted in a

criminal history score of 6 points, at the upper end of the range

for Criminal History Category III.

The PSR reported that defendant was one of 20 children. His

parents were alcoholics, and defendant witnessed acts of violence

committed by both parents. At the time of sentencing, defendant

was married to Tina Imes and had three children with her. 

Defendant began using alcohol and marijuana at age 13. He has a

history of using cocaine and hallucinogens. He has a GED and was

self-employed prior to his conviction in this case. 

The government argues that the seriousness of the offense

conduct weighs against the defendant’s early release. According to

the PSR, the criminal extensive activity in this case occurred over

a substantial period of time, from January, 2013, through April,

2014. Defendant and other co-conspirators dismantled at least 35

8

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 504
motor vehicles and advertised the parts in cities in six states. 

Defendant rented garage space at three locations. These spaces

were disguised as diesel mechanic shops, but were used to dismantle

the stolen trucks. Defendant earned between $10,000 and $15,000

per week operating this enterprise. At least 29 individuals and/or

companies suffered financial loss as a result of this scheme,

resulting in a restitution obligation of $549,627.52.

The court continues to believe that the sentence of 120 months

imposed in this case, a lenient sentence slightly below the

guideline range, is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the

offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just

punishment. At this point, defendant has served approximately 24

months of this sentence, only 20 percent of the sentence imposed. 

Releasing defendant now would result in a substantially shortened

sentence which would not reflect the seriousness of the offense,

promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment.

The shortened sentence sought by defendant would also not

afford adequate deterrence or protect the public from more crimes

by the defendant. Defendant notes that he is permitted to go

beyond the prison grounds as part of his job with the landscape

maintenance crew. He argues that he would not pose a danger to the

public if he is released on home confinement under the supervision

of a probation officer.

However, the defendant’s prior record contains multiple

examples of defendant’s poor adjustment while under supervision. 

The PSR reveals that defendant’s probation for the 1990 theft

charge was extended one year. A probation violation report was

filed while he was on supervision as a result of his 1997 criminal

9

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 505
mischief conviction when he left the county without permission and

failed to maintain contact with the probation officer. A violation

petition was also filed in connection with his 1997 theft

conviction, and he failed to report for the revocation hearing. 

Defendant was declared to be an absconder in connection with his

probation following his 2001 receiving stolen property conviction

when he failed to report and engaged in new criminal conduct. 

After his probation was restored, new violations were filed and he

was again found to be an absconder. Regarding his 2005 conviction

for unauthorized use of property, a request for revocation of

probation was filed after defendant was absent without leave from

a community correctional facility.

Finally, while defendant was on bond awaiting sentencing in

the instant case, the government filed a motion to revoke

defendant’s bond after receiving information that defendant

continued to commit theft offenses, specifically, the theft of a

Ford truck, a lawn blower, a van and tools. Defendant failed to

appear at the bond revocation hearing, and a warrant was issued for

his arrest. This history of noncompliance with the conditions of

supervision and release raises serious questions as to whether

supervision by a probation officer would adequately protect the

public from future crimes by the defendant if he is released early. 

Releasing defendant on a new term of supervised release, with a

condition of location monitoring, until his projected release date

of May 17, 2027, would severely tax the resources of the court’s

probation office.

Defendant notes that the offenses of conviction were not

violent offenses, and that he has no prior convictions for crimes

10

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 506
of violence or drug offenses. However, the PSR includes

defendant’s report to the probation officer that he was stabbed

nine times during an altercation while in jail and three times

during a street fight, and that he was shot on four different

occasions during verbal confrontations and altercations with known

and unknown individuals.

Defendant also has a long history of substance abuse. 

Although the court recommended to the BOP at the time of sentencing

that the defendant participate in the RDAP program and included

substance abuse and mental health treatment as conditions of

defendant’s supervised release, the court has no evidence that

defendant has received any substance abuse or mental health

counseling while incarcerated.

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 are sufficient to

constitute an “extraordinary and compelling reason” 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 motion for

compassionate release (Doc. 51) is denied.

Date: December 22, 2020 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

11

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 507