IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. Case No. 2:18-cr-102

Marisa Wallace

OPINION AND ORDER

By judgment entered on April 8, 2019, defendant was sentenced

to concurrent terms of incarceration of 72 months on Count 1,

conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and oxycodone in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §846, and Count 2, conspiracy to commit

money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(h). According to

the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), her projected release date is May

29, 2024. See www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited April 27,

2021).

On November 19, 2020, defendant submitted a letter which the

court construed as a motion for compassionate release under

§3582(c)(1)(A). See Doc. 50. On December 16, 2020, defendant

filed another motion for compassionate release. Doc. 53. 

Appointed counsel filed a notice on December 21, 2020, indicating

that he would not be supplementing defendant’s motions. Doc. 54. 

Defendant submitted an additional letter on January 4, 2021. Doc.

56. On January 11, 2021, the government filed a response in

opposition to the motions, arguing that defendant failed to show

that she had exhausted her administrative remedies. Doc. 57. On

January 12, 2021, defendant’s motions were denied without prejudice

due to her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 58.

On March 19, 2021, defendant filed another motion for

compassionate release. Doc. 59. She filed additional exhibits on
March 25 and 26, 2021, and April 8, 2021. Docs. 61, 62 and 66. On

March 31, 2021, defense counsel filed a notice indicating that he

did not intend to supplement defendant’s motions. Doc. 64. On

April 26, 2021, the government filed a response in opposition to

defendant’s motions. Doc. 67. The government acknowledged that

defendant has exhausted her administrative remedies, but argued

that the motion should be denied because the statutory sentencing

factors in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) outweigh any grounds for release. 

The court will therefore address defendant’s request for

compassionate release on the merits, and will consider all of her

previous motions and filings.

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

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).

2
II. Reasons for Compassionate Release

Defendant, who is 27 years old, submits that she should be

released due to the fact that she is obese and a former smoker. 

She argues that these factors enhance her risk for serious illness

if she contracts COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease

Control (“CDC”), persons with obesity, 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/need-extraprecautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (last visited April

26, 2021).

The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) stated that

defendant was 5'6" tall and weighed 180 pounds. Defendant’s BMI is

unknown. Defendant attempted to get medical records indicating her

BMI from the medical records office at the institution, but was

told that her BMI was not available for them to print, and that she

could ask her provider. Doc. 66-1, p. 3. Even assuming that

defendant’s BMI would place her within the risk range, 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).

The PSR reported that defendant was in good health. A medical

record listed defendant’s current conditions from October, 2019,

3
through January 21, 2021, as including candidiasis, disturbances in

tooth eruption and a tooth extraction, dermatitis, and a shoulder

burn. Doc. 66-2, p. 1. An individualized needs plan dated

November 4, 2020, reported that defendant was classified as CARE1,

healthy or simple chronic care, with no medical restrictions, and

that she was cleared for regular duty and food service. Doc. 53,

p. 3. 

Defendant also claims that she is at risk because she is 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. (last visited

April 26, 2021). Defendant has submitted no medical records which

support her claim that she is a former smoker or which document any

adverse physical symptoms which she is currently experiencing or

has experienced in the past due to her smoking. 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.

Defendant argues that she is at increased risk due to being 

African-American. According to the CDC, some racial minority

groups have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 due to

factors such as poverty, discrimination, lack of access to health

care, type of employment, and housing. See

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/healthequity/racial-ethnic-disparities/increased-risk-exposure.html (last

4
visited April 26, 2021). There is no indication that any of these

factors would make defendant any more susceptible than non-minority

inmates to COVID-19 in a federal institution.

On January 4, 2021, the court received a letter from the

defendant reporting that she had contracted COVID-19. Doc. 56. A

medical record indicated that defendant tested positive for COVID19 on December 19, 2020, and that shw was an asymptomatic person in

quarantine. Doc. 66-2, p. 1. There are no medical records

reporting that defendant experienced any significant symptoms as a

result of having the virus. Defendant claims that COVID has

weakened her system. Doc. 56, p. 6. She noted that she was given

a prescription for a rash on January 23, 2021, and claimed that

multiple inmates had developed a rash after having COVID-19. Doc.

66-2, p. 2. A medical record reported a diagnosis of “Dermatitis,

unspecified” on January 21, 2021, and stated that medication was

provided, but included no medical opinion that this rash was the

result of COVID-19. Doc. 66-2, p. 1.

Defendant argues that she is at risk of being re-infected with

COVID-19, noting that new strains of the virus have entered the

country. As to the likelihood that defendant will be re-infected,

the BOP indicates that defendant is confined at Lexington FMC

(Federal Medical Center) Satellite Camp. Lexington FMC has a total

of 1,150 inmates, and 182 inmates at the camp. See

www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lex (last visited April 27,

2021. Currently no inmates and no staff have tested positive for

COVID-19 at Lexington FMC, and 714 inmates and 78 staff have

recovered. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited April

27, 2021). This indicates that the BOP has taken substantial steps

5
towards mitigating the threat of COVID-19 at the institution. 

Defendant has indicated that she does not plan to be vaccinated for

religious reasons, but the BOP has reported that 306 staff members

and 584 inmates at Lexington FMC have been vaccinated. See

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited April 27, 2021). 

Although defendant expresses concern that she may still be reinfected with the virus, a matter of speculation at this point, she

is substantially protected because a large percentage of the inmate

population at Lexington FMC have either had the virus or received

the vaccine. 

 Considering all of the foregoing information, the defendant

has not shown that her health concerns and the risks presented by

COVID-19 establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for

compassionate release in her case.

III. §3553(a) Factors

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

offenses of conviction were serious offenses. From 2016 to 2018,

defendant participated in a conspiracy to distribute and to possess

with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine

and oxycodone, both dangerous drugs, and a conspiracy to commit

money laundering. The co-conspirators obtained oxycodone

prescriptions from doctors and gave the pills to defendant. 

Defendant stored large quantities of oxycodone at her residence

which she distributed to other narcotics dealers. Defendant’s

relevant conduct included 11,205 30-milligram oxycodone pills and

3,175 grams of methamphetamine. She was responsible for more than

$200,000 in currency exchanges and over $130,000 in cash deposits

in three bank accounts. Her sentence of 72 months was near the

6
bottom of the Guideline range of 70-87 months applicable after

departure.

As to defendant’s history, at the time of sentencing,

defendant was in Criminal History Category I. The PSR reported

that defendant was raised by her mother, earned good grades, and

had no disciplinary problems. She graduated from high school and

has some college credits. She used alcohol and marijuana in the

past. Defendant has presented evidence concerning her efforts at

rehabilitation while incarcerated. An individualized needs plan

dated November 4, 2020, reported that defendant has completed

eleven classes, and that she had no incident reports in the past 6

months. Doc. 53, p. 3. Defendant is also in a cook apprenticeship

program. On a work evaluation form dated March 31, 2021, defendant

received mostly “outstanding” performance ratings. Doc. 66-1, p.

5. While commendable, this record is not extraordinary.

Defendant was detained for approximately 27 days before being

released on bond, and was sentenced on April 5, 2019. She has now

served approximately 24 months, or one-third, of her 72-month

sentence. Despite the lack of a prior criminal record, defendant

had no difficulty becoming involved to a significant level in a

sophisticated multi-state drug conspiracy over the span of 3 years. 

The serious nature of her offenses presented a great danger to the

public. A reduced sentence would not be sufficient to reflect the

seriousness of the 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 compassionate release. Even assuming,

7
arguendo, that defendant’s circumstances, including her health

concerns and the threat of COVID-19, 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. Request for Recommendation for Halfway House Placement

Defendant has also requested a recommendation that she be

placed in a halfway house to serve the end of her sentence of

incarceration. Doc. 59. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3624(c)(1), BOP

has the authority to permit a defendant to serve the end of a term

of incarceration in a community correctional facility or

residential reentry center (“RRC”), such as a halfway house, for a

period not to exceed twelve months. The Bureau of Prisons also has

the authority to designate the place of a defendant’s imprisonment. 

See 18 U.S.C. §3621(b). The decision whether to permit a defendant

to serve the end of a term of incarceration in an RRC, upon

consideration of the factors in §3621(b), is within the discretion

of the Bureau of Prisons. See Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059,

1066 (9th Cir. 2010); Fournier v. Zickefoose, 620 F.Supp.2d 313,

318 (D.Conn. 2009).

Although this court has no authority to order the BOP to

permit defendant to serve the end of her term in a halfway house,

this court is permitted to make a recommendation concerning halfway

house placement. See 18 U.S.C. §3621(b)(4). However, defendant’s

projected release date is more than three years away, and

defendant’s circumstances may change during that time. The BOP

will be more familiar with defendant’s conduct while incarcerated

and her needs upon release, and has the necessary expertise to

8
decide whether placement in a halfway house is appropriate and

feasible in defendant’s case. Therefore, the court declines to

make a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons concerning such

placement.

V. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motions for

compassionate release are denied.

Date: April 28, 2021 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

9