UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CR-66-JVB-JEM 

 ) 

VAHAN KELERCHIAN, ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Reduce Sentence 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Compassionate Release) and Request for a Hearing [DE 

262], filed September 10, 2020. The Government responded on September 24, 2020, and 

Defendant replied on October 1, 2020. The Court then ordered Defendant to produce medical 

records referenced in the briefing, and permitted supplemental briefing on those records. See [DE 

268, 277, 280, 288]. For the reasons below, the Court denies Defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

 On May 17, 2013, an Indictment was filed charging Defendant with two counts of 

conspiracy to provide false statements, one count of conspiracy to defraud a government agency, 

four counts of making false statements to a government agency and aiding and abetting, one count 

of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and aiding and abetting, and one count of bribery. 

In brief, Defendant was accused of conspiring with members of the Lake County Sheriff’s 

Department to fraudulently obtain assault weapons not available to the public and sell parts of the 

weapons for profit. Defendant self-surrendered on May 20, 2013, pursuant to an arrest warrant. He 

was released pending trial on a $20,000 unsecured bond. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 1 of 10
2 

 On October 20, 2015, a jury found Defendant guilty on eight of the nine counts and not 

guilty on the remaining count (bribery). At the May 5, 2018, sentencing hearing, the Court 

sentenced Defendant to a total of 100 months imprisonment and one year of supervised release. 

Defendant is currently confined at the Federal Correctional Facility in Fort Dix, New Jersey (FCIFort Dix). 

 On September 21, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion, through counsel, asking to be 

released from prison is light of the COVID-19 pandemic and his age and various health conditions 

including obesity, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and 

sinus and respiratory infections.

ANALYSIS 

 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the Court can grant a defendant’s motion for 

compassionate release if the defendant complied with the administrative exhaustion requirement 

and the Court, having considered the factors found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as applicable, finds that 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant compassionate release and that compassionate 

release is consistent with the United States Sentencing Commission’s applicable policy statements. 

A. Administrative Exhaustion 

The administrative exhaustion requirement is satisfied “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, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant made 

written requests for compassionate release through counsel on March 30, 2020, and April 8, 2020, 

and made an undated request, apparently pro se, which was denied on August 20, 2020. See Reply 

Ex. 1 [DE 121]. Defendant has satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement.

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 2 of 10
3 

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons 

 Congress tasked the Sentencing Commission with promulgating a policy statement on 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) and the definition of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 

The policy statement, found in the application notes to § 1B1.13 of the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual, provides, as is relevant here, that a defendant’s medical condition is an 

extraordinary and compelling reason when the defendant’s serious physical or medical condition 

“substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment 

of a correctional facility” and the defendant is not expected to recover from the condition. U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. 1.1

1. Defendant’s Medical Conditions 

 Defendant identifies his age2 (61) and various illnesses for the Court to consider in 

assessing his request for compassionate release: specifically, sinus infections, respiratory 

infections, asthma, bronchospasm, sciatica, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, gout, polyneuropathy, 

gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, COPD, osteoarthritis, and various leg injuries. 

Although the Court considers each condition, only a few of these conditions are identified by the 

CDC as creating an increased risk from COVID-19: namely, age, obesity, asthma, hypertension, 

and COPD.3

 

1

 The policy statement does not reflect the First Step Act’s change to § 3582(c)(1)(A), which now permits a defendant 

to bring a motion for compassionate release. 

2

 The CDC reports that the risk from COVID-19 increases with age, but denotes a particular risk for those 65 and 

older. See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html (last visited 

December 8, 2020). 

3 See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/evidence-table.html (last visited December 8, 

2020). The Court also addresses Defendant’s sinus and respiratory infections and related symptoms, although neither 

condition, by itself, is listed by the CDC as producing a higher risk. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 3 of 10
4 

Defendant produced records from private doctors and the BOP’s medical records in support 

of his motion. In brief, the records4 indicate as follows: Defendant generally has sinus infections 

multiple times in a year. See, e.g., Kelerchian 3 at 24 (March 6, 2018); Gringieri Records at 9-10 

(October 4, 2017); 13 (October 10, 2016); 17 (May 2, 2016); 21 (September 26, 2015). He has 

also suffered from respiratory infections. See Kelerchian 3 at 51 (May 3, 2019; October 23, 2018); 

Kelerchian 2 at 19 (March 5, 2019). Symptoms have included a persistent cough, sore throat, 

shortness of breath, and fatigue. See Gringieri Records at 5-10, 13, Kelerchian 2 at 19. In October 

and November 2017, he was diagnosed with “sinobronchial syndrome” and bronchospasm, and 

was prescribed antibiotics, cough medicine, and an inhaler. Gringieri Records at 5, 9-10. In June 

2020, he reported an “old history” of asthma with no current treatment, but has since been 

prescribed an inhaler as needed to “prevent/relieve [an] asthma attack.” Kelerchian 1 at 9, 19. 

However, at his most recent medical visits, he has denied shortness of breath, has reported no acute 

discomfort, and has not presented with a cough. Ex. 2 to Gov’t Supp. Resp. [DE 290] (November 

19, 2020); Kelerchian 1 at 2 (September 17, 2020), 8-9 (July 23 and 29, 2020). 

With regard to hypertension, his blood pressure was recently measured5

 at 132/83 (July 29, 

2020); 133/86 (July 8, 2020); 159/93; and 157/103 (both June 17, 2020). Id. at 7, 11. In June 2020, 

he was prescribed blood pressure medications and counseled as to diet and exercise. Id. at 14-15. 

His most recent reading was 118/70, which is within normal limits. See Ex. 2 to Gov’t Supp. Resp. 

4

 Defendant submitted additional records to the Court in the form of a CD. See [DE 270]. The CD includes one set of 

records from private doctors, the BOP’s medication summary, and three separate files containing the BOP’s medical 

records. With some exceptions, the file named “Vahan Kelerchian 1” contains records from November 2019 to 

October 2020; “Vahan Kelerchian 2” contains records from March 2019 to September 2019; and “Vahan Kelerchian 

3” contains records from March 2018 to September 2018. The private records cover events prior to November 2017. 

For ease of reference, the Court refers to the file name (e.g., “Kelerchian 1”), the page number of that file, and – where 

appropriate – the date of the relevant record. 

5

 A reading of 120/80 is considered “normal,” while a reading of 130/80 or higher indicates hypertension. See 

https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/about.htm (last visited December 7, 2020). 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 4 of 10
5 

[DE 290] (November 19, 2020). In July 2020, Defendant was recorded with a BMI of 33.9, 

Kelerchian 1 at 8, but there are no records of any significant treatment to address obesity. Although 

blood tests have shown him to have high cholesterol, see, e.g., Kelerchian 3 at 66 (April 5, 2018), 

his most recent tests showed cholesterol levels within normal limits. See Kelerchian 1 at 35 (May 

7, 2020). A document relating to his job duties in the prison includes the notation “COPD” 

(Kelerchian 1 at 74), but there is no apparent discussion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder 

in the medical records, and no evidence that it was diagnosed, nor does Defendant’s doctor refer 

to it in his letter requesting compassionate release. The records largely substantiate Defendant’s 

claims of other ailments not directly related to COVID-19, such as his leg injuries. However, they 

do not show that he has required aggressive treatment for his conditions, or that he would be unable 

to provide self-care at the correctional facility. 

Defendant also submits two letters from his private doctor. One requests his release 

because “he is more vulnerable to coronavirus and if he contracts it more likely to die.” Mot. Ex. 

A (April 9, 2020 Gringieri Letter) [DE 263-1]. The second indicates that he is at a “greatly 

increased risk of developing serious complications and death,” citing six factors: hyperlipidemia, 

hypertension, age, obesity, use of omeprazole (a medication for GERD), and high levels of uric 

acid. Mot. Ex. B (June 25, 2020 Gringieri Letter) [DE 263-2]. Neither Dr. Gringieri nor the CDC 

indicates that sinus conditions increase the risk of serious illness from COVID-19. 

The Court acknowledges that Defendant’s conditions increase his risk; however, the letters 

and medical records do not establish the severity of the conditions in a way that shows them to be 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Nor do the letters show that aggressive treatment 

is required for these conditions, or that they cannot be managed in the prison. Courts addressing 

the conditions identified by Dr. Gringieri have often found that, while they may result in increased 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 5 of 10
6 

risk, that fact alone does not establish “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances meriting 

release. See, e.g., United States v. Carter, No. 20-2336, 2020 WL 7232003 (7th Cir. Dec. 8, 2020) 

(asthma, obesity, and hypertension); United States v. McCloud, No. 1:17-CR-57-HAB, 2020 WL 

5406182 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 9, 2020) (age, hypertension, obesity, and high cholesterol); United States 

v. Council, No. 1:14-CR-14-5-TLS-SLC, 2020 WL 3097461, at *5 (N.D. Ind. June 11, 2020) 

(asthma, high blood pressure, and obesity); United States v. Koons, 455 F. Supp. 3d 285, 291 

(W.D. La. 2020) (age, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and acid reflux). The Court’s research 

has not revealed a case in which increased uric acid or the use of omeprazole was cited as 

supporting a finding of compassionate release. Cf. United States v. Costello, No. 3:15-CR-72, 2020 

WL 6118842, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2020) (successful treatment with omeprazole weighed 

against compassionate release). With regard to Defendant’s obesity (a recorded BMI of 33.9), 

courts have emphasized the distinction between “obesity” – meaning a BMI above the threshold 

score of 30 – and “severe obesity” – a BMI of 40 or more, which carries a greater risk. See, e.g., 

United States v. Villasenor, No. 03 CR 0689 (-02), 2020 WL 7129368, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 

2020); United States v. Tranter, No. 1:17-CR-22-HAB, 2020 WL 3841268, at *2, n.2 (N.D. Ind. 

July 8, 2020) (“With numbers in excess of 30 qualifying as obese, [a BMI of 33.1] is obese by 

BMI standards, if only just.”). 

In supplemental briefing, Defendant specifically alleges that the BOP “failed to recognize” 

his high blood pressure and failed to administer treatment. Between March 2018 and June 2020, 

during medical visits for other issues, Defendant consistently tested above the normal limits of 

120/80. See Ex. C to Supplemental Reply [DE 282-3]. The records do not show that the prison 

medical staff diagnosed hypertension or offered treatment. In June 2020, following a reading of 

159/93, he was diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 6 of 10
7 

Kelerchian 1 at 14. From that point, his blood pressure declined, and on November 19, 2020 he 

was found to be within normal limits. See id. at 7, 11 (July 2020); Ex. 2 to Supp. Resp. [DE 290]. 

In a letter attached to the Government’s briefing, Defendant’s treating physician at the BOP states: 

“He was started on Amlodipine and Hydrochlorothiazide in June for modest elevations of his 

Blood Pressure.” See Ex. 1 to Supp. Resp. [DE 290]. 

Neither the BOP doctor nor the Government addresses the readings of high blood pressure 

between March 2018 and June 2020. However, these facts do not show that hypertension cannot 

be treated at the prison. Even crediting Defendant’s allegation that the prison should have 

intervened earlier, the evidence shows that after he was prescribed medication in June 2020, his 

blood pressure decreased, and has returned to normal levels. If there was medical error, it is not 

attributable to COVID-19, because most of the elevated readings occurred before the outbreak and 

Defendant continued to have medical visits after the outbreak began. To the extent his blood 

pressure remains an issue, the evidence indicates that it can be managed at the prison. 

While Defendant’s conditions put him at a higher risk than if he were healthy, the record 

does not support his contention that he would suffer “inevitable” serious illness or death if he were 

infected. In sum, Defendant’s medical issues do not by themselves establish extraordinary and 

compelling circumstances. 

2. COVID-19 at FCI-Fort Dix 

 The Court separately addresses Defendant’s argument that his incarceration at FCI-Fort 

Dix significantly increases his risk of COVID-19 infection. The Court does not take this concern 

lightly, particularly given recent developments at FCI-Fort Dix. On the morning of October 30, 

2020, of the 2,579 inmates at FCI-Fort Dix, the BOP reported 59 confirmed cases of COVID-19 

among inmates. Later that day, the BOP reported 165 confirmed cases. See Defendant’s November 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 7 of 10
8 

5, 2020 Status Report [DE 274] (citing https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/). As of December 7, 

2020, the BOP reported 2,575 total inmates, of whom 103 inmates and 33 staff are listed as 

confirmed positive cases. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. 266 inmates and 6 staff members 

are listed as having “recovered,” with no deaths reported among inmates or staff. Id.; see also 

United Sates v. Mongelli, No. 02-CR-307 (NGG), 2020 WL 6449237, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 

2020) (noting “the failure of the Bureau of Prisons to prevent and control a COVID-19 outbreak 

at FCI Fort Dix”). 

On November 10, 2020, in a habeas corpus action in the District of New Jersey, the 

Government submitted a declaration from an associate warden at FCI-Fort Dix acknowledging an 

outbreak at Fort Dix and laying out steps the prison was taking to ameliorate it. See Whiteside v. 

Fort Dix Federal Prison, No. 1:20-CV-05544-NLH [DE 26-1] (D. N. J. November 10, 2020). 

Although FCI-Fort Dix has accepted transfers of COVID-19 positive inmates, the prison believes 

it appropriately quarantined those inmates and that they did not contribute to the outbreak. Id. at ¶ 

9-14. The associate warden indicated that of the 229 active cases, 218 of them arose from a single 

housing unit of 231 inmates, all of whom were tested between October 20, 2020 and November 5, 

2020. Id. at ¶ 15. In response, the prison has suspended all visitation, all contact between inmates 

of different housing units, and all transfers of inmates into and out of the prison, among other 

measures. Id. at ¶ 18-19. 

 Addressing the risk to Defendant, the Government points out that as of November 12, 2020, 

8.23 percent of the population at FCI-Fort Dix had tested positive, while 8.2 percent of all tests 

taken in the United States in the previous week had come back positive. See Supp. Resp. [DE 277] 

at 10 (citing https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html). In 

the Government’s view, this “reveal[s] that the dangers of contracting COVID in the incarcerated 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 8 of 10
9 

conditions at Ft. Dix is almost identical to the risk of COVID posed to the non-incarcerated United 

States population.” But to compare the infection rate of the entire prison to the rate among the 

fraction of Americans who seek out testing – and are disproportionately likely to be infected –

distorts the picture. Since the pandemic began, roughly 4.46 percent of the U.S. population (14.64 

million of roughly 328.2 million) has contracted COVID-19. See https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-datatracker (last visited December 7, 2020). By contrast, at least 14.33 percent of Fort Dix inmates 

(369 out of 2,575) are or have been infected with COVID-19. While Defendant argues that the 

prison could not properly treat him if he were infected, it should be noted that the BOP reports no 

deaths from COVID-19 at the prison – although it is unclear whether that includes inmates who 

were released after contracting the virus. 

The Court emphasizes that in denying Defendant’s motion, it does not accept the 

Government’s conclusion that Fort Dix “is still as safe (at least in regards to COVID) as any place 

else in the United States.” However, the presence of COVID-19 in a prison, even in large numbers, 

does not justify compassionate release unless the inmate’s medical conditions are sufficiently 

serious. See, e.g., United States v. Buchanan, No. 1:18-CR-21-HAB, 2020 WL 3790589, at *1 

(N.D. Ind. July 7, 2020) (denying compassionate release from FCI-Elkton despite 360 active cases 

of COVID-19 among inmates); United States v. Pena, No. 2:15-CR-72-PPS, 2020 WL 3264113, 

at *3 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2020) (denying compassionate release where “prison medical records 

indicate that Pena is generally in good health and his ailments are well-controlled” despite outbreak 

at FCI-Elkton); see also United States v. Collins, No. 14-CR-30038, 2020 WL 2301217, at *2 

(C.D. Ill. May 8, 2020) (“[T]he COVID-19 pandemic does not warrant the release of every federal 

prisoner with health conditions that makes him more susceptible to the disease.”). In this case, the 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 9 of 10
10 

Court finds that Defendant’s circumstances are not “extraordinary and compelling reasons” 

warranting compassionate release. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Emergency Motion to 

Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Compassionate Release) and Request 

for a Hearing [DE 262]. 

 SO ORDERED on December 9, 2020. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00066-JVB-JEM document 292 filed 12/09/20 page 10 of 10