UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 1:15-CR-35-HAB 

 ) 

JEREMY HANDSHOE ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

 Defendant has filed his second motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 124). He cites 

a change in the law, his family circumstances, and the length of his sentence as extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for release. (Id. at 1). The Government has filed a response (ECF No. 129), 

arguing that Defendant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The time for Defendant 

to file a reply has passed without action.1

 Because the Court finds that the Government has properly 

asserted Defendant’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Defendant’s motion will be 

denied. 

A. Defendant’s Conviction 

 Defendant was indicted on June 24, 2015, with two counts of being a felon in possession 

of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(e). The indictment stemmed from two 

different instances when Defendant, a convicted felon, sold firearms to a confidential informant. 

Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. The significant 

sentence reflected Defendant’s status as an armed career criminal. 

1

 It is likely that Defendant did not receive the order setting a reply deadline, as that order was returned as 

undeliverable. (ECF No. 131). But all litigants, pro se or otherwise, have a duty to keep the Court up-to-date on their 

contact information and to independently monitor the docket. United States v. $9,171.00 United States Currency, Case 

No. 1:16-cv-483-TWP-MJD, 2019 WL 1996930, at *1 (S.D. Ind. June 21, 2019). 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00035-HAB-SLC document 132 filed 08/05/24 page 1 of 3
B. Legal Discussion 

Generally, a court is statutorily prohibited from modifying a term of imprisonment once 

imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). A handful of statutory exceptions exist, however, one of which 

allows a court to grant an inmate compassionate release if the inmate meets certain requirements. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Under this provision, a court may not modify a term of 

imprisonment except that – 

 (1) in any case -- 

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion 

of the defendant 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 . . . after considering the factors set forth 

in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, . . . finds that— 

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction ... 

... and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued 

by the Sentencing Commission[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

Because Defendant, not the Director of the BOP, filed the motion, Defendant must first 

show that he has satisfied the statutory exhaustion requirement. For most of the life of the COVIDrelated compassionate release phenomenon, there was considerable confusion as to whether 

exhaustion of remedies was jurisdictional, a claims-processing rule, or wholly unnecessary. That 

confusion was resolved, at least in this circuit, by the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States 

v. Sanford, 986 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2021). There, the Court answered affirmatively the question of 

“whether the exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule and therefore must be 

enforced when properly invoked.” Id. at 782 (original emphasis). Where, as here, the Government 

raises exhaustion as a defense (see ECF No. 129 at 5), a defendant must demonstrate that he has 

presented his request for release to the warden at his facility, and either: (1) he has exhausted 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00035-HAB-SLC document 132 filed 08/05/24 page 2 of 3
administrative appeals (if the request was denied); or (2) he has waited “30 days from the receipt 

of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility” to seek relief from the Court. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Exhaustion is required each time a defendant seeks compassionate release. United 

States v. Cain, 2021 WL 388436 at *4 (D. Maine Feb. 3, 2021) (collecting cases). 

Defendant has plainly failed to demonstrate exhaustion. He did not mention any request to 

the warden in his motion. And the Government has submitted documents from the BOP showing 

that no request was made. The Court must invoke the exhaustion requirement here. 

C. Conclusion 

 For these reasons, Defendant’s second motion for compassionate release (ECF No. 124) is 

DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on August 5, 2024. 

 

 s/ Holly A. Brady 

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00035-HAB-SLC document 132 filed 08/05/24 page 3 of 3