UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:12-CR-4-JVB-APR 

 ) 

ROBERT A. BILLINGS, ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on a Motion [for] Order of Expedited Release to Home 

Confinement or Compassionate Release [DE 70], filed by Defendant Robert Billings, pro se, on 

October 26, 2020. The Government responded on November 4, 2020. For the reasons below, the 

Court denies the motion. 

BACKGROUND

 On January 4, 2012, a two-count Indictment was filed charging Defendant with receiving 

(Count 1) and possessing (Count 2) visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit 

conduct. Defendant was arrested and held without bond pending trial. 

 On November 16, 2012, Defendant pled guilty to Count 1 pursuant to a plea agreement. At 

the sentencing hearing on the same day, the Court dismissed the remaining count, and sentenced 

Defendant to a total of 151 months imprisonment and 25 years of supervised release. Defendant is 

currently confined at the Federal Correctional Facility in Ashland, Kentucky (FCI-Ashland). 

 On October 26, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion, asking to be released from prison1

is light of the COVID-19 pandemic and his hypertension and high BMI. The Court referred the 

1

 Defendant asks the Court to “transfer [him] to home confinement . . . or in the alternative, order a reduction in [his] 

sentence pursuant to the applicable law governing compassionate release.” Only the Bureau of Prisons can decide 

where Defendant serves his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). However, the Court can consider his request for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cr-00004-JVB-APR document 75 filed 11/05/20 page 1 of 5
2 

motion to the Federal Community Defenders Office to consider whether to file a supplemental 

brief in support of Defendant’s motion. The office declined to do so. The Government filed its 

response on November 4, 2020.

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 

Although Defendant states that he complied with the administrative exhaustion 

requirement, the Government argues that he did not. This 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 attaches a printout of correspondence addressed to the Warden, dated June 26, 2020, in 

which he requests to be “released to home confinement under the CARES Act.” Mot. Ex. 1 [DE 

70-1] at 1. The request was apparently denied on June 29, 2020. See id. The Government states 

that the “BOP has no record of Defendant seeking a Reduction in Sentence from his Warden,” but 

does not address the correspondence submitted by Defendant. Nonetheless, the Government 

concedes that this issue is not jurisdictional, and the Court need not determine Defendant’s 

compliance with the requirement because the motion is denied for other reasons. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cr-00004-JVB-APR document 75 filed 11/05/20 page 2 of 5
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. 1.2

 Defendant identifies hypertension3 and high BMI for the Court to consider in deciding 

whether to grant Defendant compassionate release. Defendant’s medical records, submitted by the 

Government with its response, indicate that in 2013, his hypertension was in “remission.” Resp. 

Ex. B [DE 73-2] at 16. On May 13, 2020, he complained of high blood pressure and reported that 

he had taken himself off hypertension medication “years ago.” Id. at 7. He was given a prescription 

for lisinopril to address hypertension, and counseled as to his diet. Id. at 7. At a follow-up 

appointment two weeks later, he reported that he was “doing well.” Id. at 5. Imaging of his chest 

on August 21, 2020 revealed normal results with mild cardiac enlargement. Id. at 31. Most 

recently, on October 27, 2020, he reported that he was still taking the medication and “doing well,” 

and the prison medical staff listed his hypertension as “controlled.” Id. at 1-2. None of the records 

provided to the Court address Defendant’s BMI, although he claims it is over 30. 

2

 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. 

3

 Separately, Defendant lists “high blood pressure” as another condition to consider, but high blood pressure is 

synonymous with hypertension. See https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/symptomscauses/syc-20373410 (last visited November 5, 2020). 

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cr-00004-JVB-APR document 75 filed 11/05/20 page 3 of 5
4 

 Hypertension and obesity can lead to higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19, see

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medicalconditions.html (last visited November 5, 2020). However, Defendant’s medical records do not 

show that he has experienced particularly severe symptoms, required aggressive treatment, or 

would be unable to provide self-care at the correctional facility. The records indicate that, after a 

long period without taking hypertension medication, Defendant’s hypertension is “controlled” 

with medication. Nothing in the record indicates that the condition cannot be managed at the 

facility. As for Defendant’s BMI, accepting Defendant’s contention that it is over 30, the CDC 

would classify him as obese, which carries an increased risk of severe illness. See 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medicalconditions.html#obesity (last visited November 5, 2020). But there is no indication that Defendant 

sought or has required any treatment for obesity, or that his obesity is severe. See id. (BMI of 40 

or above is classified as “severe”). In summary, although Defendant has conditions that increase 

his risk of severe illness, it is not apparent that they are so severe as to be “extraordinary and 

compelling” reasons for release. See United States v. Santiago, No. 2:16-CR-174-JVB-JEM, 2020 

WL 3396899 (N.D. Ind. June 19, 2020) (denying request for release despite allegations of 

hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and childhood asthma). 

 Defendant argues that because he is incarcerated, he faces an increased risk for contracting 

COVID-19. The Court does not take this concern lightly. Of the 1,032 inmates at FCI-Ashland, 

the BOP reports 1 active case of COVID-19 among inmates, and none among staff, while 7 inmates 

and 5 staff members are listed as having “recovered.” See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last 

visited November 5, 2020). The Court acknowledges that the threat is ongoing and can change 

rapidly. However, the risk also exists outside of prison. Defendant’s motion does not indicate 

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cr-00004-JVB-APR document 75 filed 11/05/20 page 4 of 5
5 

where he would live if released, but the CDC reports that nationwide, more than 9.3 million people, 

or roughly 2.85% of the population, have tested positive for COVID-19. See 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker (last visited November 5, 2020). Defendant also points 

to other circumstances he hopes would warrant his release, such as his remorse for his actions, his 

good behavior in prison, improved job prospects from the welding training he has received, and 

the support he receives from friends and family. While the Court acknowledges the progress 

Defendant has made, these factors are generally not the kind that justify compassionate release. 

See, e.g., United States v. Milton, No. 2:15-CR-172, 2020 WL 6268806, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 

2020) (“While Milton’s good behavior and desire to better herself by taking classes is certainly 

commendable . . . it is not a basis for release.”). 

 Under the circumstances, the Court cannot say that Defendant’s medical conditions and the 

present COVID-19 pandemic provide an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant 

compassionate release and must deny the motion. In so doing, 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.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020). 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion [for] Order of Expedited 

Release to Home Confinement or Compassionate Release [DE 70]. 

 SO ORDERED on November 5, 2020. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cr-00004-JVB-APR document 75 filed 11/05/20 page 5 of 5