UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-4-JVB-JEM

)

RITA LAW, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an “Emergency Motion” Request for Immediate Release 

[DE 516] filed by Defendant on June 5, 2020. For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion.

BACKGROUND

On October 17, 2013, a criminal complaint was filed against Defendant. Defendant was 

arrested on December 13, 2013. She was remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal 

pending trial. An indictment, superseding indictment, and second superseding indictment were 

filed. In the second superseding indictment, filed on December 22, 2016, Defendant was charged 

with two counts of trafficking and servitude and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1590(a) and § 2, one count of transporting for prostitution and aiding and abetting in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 and § 2, and use of an interstate facility to promote prostitution and aiding 

and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) and § 2.

A jury trial was held from January 23, 2017, through February 10, 2017. The jury found 

Defendant guilty of the four counts brought against her in the second superseding indictment. At 

the July 10, 2019 sentencing hearing, Defendant was committed to the custody of the Bureau of 

Prisons for a total term of 360 months. No term of supervised release was imposed. Defendant has 

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cr-00004-JVB-JEM document 529 filed 09/04/20 page 1 of 3
2

appealed, and her appeal is pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant is 

currently incarcerated at Secured Female Facility Hazelton (SFF Hazelton).

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. 

The Government argues that Defendant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. 

Defendant, in her motion did not indicate whether she complied with this requirement. The 

Government concedes that this issue is not jurisdictional. The Court need not determine 

Defendant’s compliance with the requirement because the motion is denied for other 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 guidelines manual provides that the Court must determine that “the defendant is not a danger 

to the safety of any other person or to the community.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 

§ 1B1.13(2). 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. Id. at § 1B1.13 cmt. 1.1

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.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cr-00004-JVB-JEM document 529 filed 09/04/20 page 2 of 3
3

Defendant has presented no argument that she has any particular medical condition that 

places her at a higher risk to develop severe illness should she contract the coronavirus or that 

would substantially diminish her ability to provide self-care within the environment of her 

correctional facility. Thus, the Court cannot find that her medical condition is an extraordinary and 

compelling reason such that compassionate release may be warranted. Therefore, Defendant’s 

motion is denied. In so ruling, however, the Court

do[es] not mean to minimize the risks that COVID-19 poses in the federal prison 

system . . . . But the mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that 

it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify 

compassionate release, especially considering [the Bureau of Prisons’] statutory 

role, and its extensive and professional efforts to curtail the virus’s spread.

United States v. Raia, 954 F.3 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES the “Emergency Motion” Request for 

Immediate Release [DE 516].

SO ORDERED on September 4, 2020.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cr-00004-JVB-JEM document 529 filed 09/04/20 page 3 of 3