UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-56-HAB 

) 

KEANA M. DAVIS ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 On June 8, 2020, Defendant Keana Davis filed a motion seeking a reduction in her sentence 

under the compassionate release provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In addition to her belief 

that the Bureau of Prisons had a “blatant disregard” for her health at FCI-Hazelton where she is 

incarcerated, Davis cited to her pre-diabetic condition, mild arthritis and possibly cancerous 

ovarian masses1

 as “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warranting a sentencing 

reduction. Upon a thorough review, the Court determined that Davis did not advance extraordinary 

and compelling circumstances sufficient to justify her release and that the § 3553(a) factors further 

weighed against her request. (ECF No. 103). Now Davis is before the Court again claiming she 

has just recently been diagnosed as obese, spurring her present Motion to Reconsider this Court’s 

order denying her request for compassionate release. (ECF No. 108). 

 The Government has filed its response to Davis’ most recent motion (ECF No. 111) along 

with Davis’ updated medical records and a 38-page exhibit listing Davis’ commissary purchases 

from October 2019 through September 15, 2020. The Court has reviewed these filings in detail 

and notes that there does not appear to be any “new” diagnosis of obesity in Davis’ records. Her 

presentence investigation report from 2014 indicated that at that time she stood 5’4” tall and 

weighed 220 lbs. which equates to a BMI of 37.8. In May 2020, her medical records show her 

1

 Davis has been diagnosed with uterine fibroids which she refers to as “ovarian masses.” 

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cr-00056-HAB-SLC document 113 filed 09/28/20 page 1 of 4
weight to be 228 lbs, equating to a BMI of 39.1, just shy of what medically is considered severely 

obese. Thus, there is no doubt Davis qualifies as obese and has since at least 2014. There is equally 

no doubt, based on the Government’s presentation of Davis’ commissary purchases, that Davis 

has demonstrated a dietary lack of concern for her own health. She has made poor dietary choices, 

including purchasing large amounts of candy, soda, and processed baked goods, that the Court can 

only presume contributes to not only her pre-diabetes but her obesity. 2

Both the Government and this Court acknowledge the Center for Disease Control’s 

guidance that obesity (BMI over 30) increases the risk for severe illness from COVID-19. People 

with Certain Medical Conditions, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medicalconditions.html (Sept. 11, 2020). For obesity, the CDC recommends that a person “[f]ollow your 

healthcare provider's recommendations for nutrition and physical activity, while maintaining 

social distancing precautions.” Id.

As noted, Davis’ most recent medical record of her weight is from May 2020. She has had 

no specific medical complaints or concerns attributed to her weight and no other records show that 

her obesity presents an ongoing problem in and of itself. At her most recent medical appointment 

on August 19, 2020, there is no mention of any complaints from Davis regarding her weight, prediabetes or uterine fibroid conditions in the records, nor is there any mention of these conditions 

by the provider.3 The same is true for her medical appointment on July 29, 2020, where the only 

conditions mentioned are psoriasis, cellulitis, and a tooth abscess. 

2

 The Court is aware that inmates have limited control over some aspects of their diet while incarcerated. Here, 

however, the Government has set forth a record of commissary purchases showing Davis’ selections when given 

control over her diet to suggest that she has not made a meaningful effort to control her weight. 

3

 The medical records do note that the exam was “limited secondary to being seen through cell door window.” 

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cr-00056-HAB-SLC document 113 filed 09/28/20 page 2 of 4
Additionally, Davis has not demonstrated that her obesity prevents her from engaging in 

self-care to manage her other conditions and her obesity is not a condition “from which she ... is 

not expected to recover” as weight can fluctuate. See United States v. Elliott, No. 3:17-CR-00051 

(PGS), 2020 WL 5517461, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2020) (observing that inmate lost 70 lbs and 

was no longer considered obese); United States v. Leachman, No. 16-CR-30042, 2020 WL 

4366087, at *2 (C.D. Ill. July 30, 2020) (noting that morbidly obese Defendant’s weight decreased 

by 13 pounds and that Defendant had made lifestyle changes to address his weight); but see, United 

States v. Henderson, No. CR 15-0329 (ES), 2020 WL 5055081, at *3–4 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2020) 

(rejecting the Government’s position that the Defendant shoulders responsibility for his obesity 

and the means of eliminating it “as if this medical condition is regulated by simple will power.”) 

and United States v. Nygren, No. 1:16-CR-00106-JAW, 2020 WL 4208926, at *12 (D. Me. July 

22, 2020) (“[T]he Court rejects the Government's position that it should deny Mr. Nygren’s 

petition and place him at risk of severe medical consequences, even death, because in the 

Government’s moralistic view, he lacks sufficient self-control.”). 

In her original petition, Davis eluded to conditions of confinement limiting her ability to 

leave her cell or exercise.4 The Court acknowledges that in-facility movement has been 

understandably curtailed by the BOP due to COVID-19 and may hinder her ability to manage her 

weight through exercise. But even prior to these restrictions being in place, Davis showed little 

resolve to engage in the type of lifestyle modifications necessary to aid her health. And, while the 

Court is sympathetic to the difficulties of an individual’s weight loss journey, the guidance from 

the CDC related to obesity during COVID is the same for all individuals, incarcerated or not – 

4

 The Court also notes that persons housed within the BOP were not the only individuals affected by COVID-19 

related restrictions. During the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, exercise facilities and gyms nationwide 

were closed or severely restricted as part of each state’s social distancing and COVID-19 reduction plan. Thus, the 

ability of un-incarcerated individuals to maintain their physical health during this time was also challenged. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cr-00056-HAB-SLC document 113 filed 09/28/20 page 3 of 4
better nutrition and physical activity. Davis has not suggested, or in any way indicated, that she 

intends to do what is necessary to comply with the CDC’s advice inside the BOP or out. 

Setting aside the above discourse as to whether a compassionate release petitioner has at 

least some marginal obligation to maintain their own health while incarcerated, see United States 

v. Tranter, No. 1:17-CR-22-HAB, 2020 WL 3841268, at *4 (N.D. Ind. July 8, 2020)(denying 

compassionate release for a defendant’s poor life choices as it allows “an avenue for defendants to 

create grounds on their own” that serves to “cheapen the concept of extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances.”), in this case, even if the Court was inclined to find that Davis’ obesity in tandem 

with her pre-diabetes and other health issues constituted an “extraordinary and compelling” reason 

justifying release, the Court remains firm in its conviction that her release is inappropriate in light 

of the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and the corresponding danger she presents to society if released 

prematurely. See, ECF No. 103 at pp. 6-7. Accordingly, Davis’ motion for reconsideration (ECF 

No. 108) is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on September 28, 2020. 

s/ Holly A. Brady 

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cr-00056-HAB-SLC document 113 filed 09/28/20 page 4 of 4