1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 : Case No. 2:17-cr-242 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : 

DAVID L. DOBBINS, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

OPINION & ORDER 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant David L. Dobbins’ Motion for 

Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 57). The Government opposes. (ECF No. 61). For the reasons 

set forth below, the Motion for Compassionate Release is DENIED. (ECF No. 57). 

II. BACKGROUND 

On August 29, 2018, Defendant David L. Dobbins pleaded guilty to Counts 1-5 and Count 

7 of the Superseding Indictment charging him with three counts of possession with intent to 

distribute heroin (Counts 1, 3, and 4), three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine 

base (Counts 2 and 5) and distribution of heroin and cocaine resulting in the death of another 

person (Count 7). (ECF No. 37). The guilty plea was pursuant to a plea agreement under Rule 11 

(c)(1)(C) that sought to bind the Court to a sentence of 240 months of incarceration, followed by 

a term of three years of supervised release, and a $600 mandatory special assessment. On February 

25, 2019, this Court accepted the plea agreement and adopted the recommended sentence. 

Mr. Dobbins is now 42 years of age and currently housed at FCI Gilmer, located in 

Glenville, West Virginia. His projected release date is October 2, 2034. He has been in custody 

since his arrest on April 14, 2017. 

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/26/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 280
2

Mr. Dobbins’ Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) medical records confirm that he has underlying 

health conditions that make him particularly vulnerable to serious medical complications from 

COVID-19, including chronic obstructive cardiopulmonary disease (“COPD”). He argues that his 

continued incarceration at FCI Gilmer poses a specific, material risk of complications of COVID19 that rises to the level of an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. 

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 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 

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

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/26/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 281
3

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. 

On August 17, 2020, after Mr. Dobbins submitted a completed Inmate to Staff Member 

Request for compassionate release, FCI Gilmer Warden R. Hudgins denied Dobbins’ request for 

compassionate release. On October 19, 2020, counsel for Mr. Dobbins submitted a completed BOP 

Form 229 (BP-9), to the warden via electronic mail. On October 22, 2020, Mr. Dobbins, on his 

own, submitted a completed BP-9 to the warden. The warden did not respond to either request. 

Thus, the administrative exhaustion requirement is fulfilled because thirty days passed since the 

warden received Mr. Dobbins’ October 19, 2020 request, and Mr. Dobbins’ subsequent January 

12, 2021 Motion for Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 57). 

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/26/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 282
4

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons 

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

and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(1)(A)(i). This 

court has “full discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’” without consulting the policy 

statement § 1B1.13.” Jones, 980 F.3d at 1109. 

On January 12, 2021, Defendant David L. Dobbins petitioned this Court for compassionate 

release, citing his well-documented COPD and concomitant risk of serious illness if infected with 

the virus that causes COVID-19. (ECF No. 57). On April 2, 2021, the Government filed a response 

asserting that the issue is now moot because Defendant received his second COVID-19 vaccination 

on March 23, 2021 (ECF No. 61). Mr. Dobbins filed a reply, noting that even though the 

vaccinations are effective, the Centers for Disease Control expects breakthrough cases, a risk that 

seems particularly acute in the incarceration context. 

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

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

COVID-19 in prisons has been well documented, and FCI Gilmer, where Mr. Dobbins is confined, 

is no exception. Two-hundred and ninety incarcerated individuals and seventy-three staff members 

have contracted the virus since the pandemic began. Tragically, one incarcerated person has died 

from the virus while in FCI Gilmer’s care. 

One-hundred and forty-two staff and one-thousand and eighty-one incarcerated individuals 

have been fully vaccinated, however. There are one-thousand five-hundred and twenty-five total 

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/26/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 283
5

inmates at FCI Gilmer, meaning about 70% of inmates have been fully vaccinated, representing 

near herd-immunity.1

This Court is sensitive to Mr. Dobbins’ very serious and well-documented health concerns 

related to his COPD. Unfortunately for Mr. Dobbins, he has not demonstrated why his continued 

incarceration poses extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release. Most of the 

individuals with whom Mr. Dobbins is interacting are vaccinated, thus mitigating the risk of 

exposure to COVID-19. In addition, he himself is vaccinated, which provides an additional layer 

of protection. Thus, Mr. Dobbins’ argument that he continues to be at risk for serious illness or 

death due to COVID-19 does not rise past the speculative level. 

The Motion for Compassionate Release is DENIED. (ECF No. 57). 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Dobbins’ Motion for Compassionate Release is 

DENIED. (Id.). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: July 26, 2021

1

 Cleveland Clinic, How Much of the Population Will Need to be Vaccinated Until the Pandemic 

is Over?, https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-much-of-the-population-will-need-to-bevaccinated-until-the-pandemic-is-over (last visited July 14, 2021). 

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/26/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 284