1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CAUSE NO.: 1:16-CR-55-TLS-SLC 

KEENAN DAVIS 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Letter [ECF No. 175] filed on 

February 16, 2021. The Defendant’s Letter asks the Court to reconsider his motion for 

compassionate release. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the request. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On February 27, 2017, a jury found the Defendant guilty on two counts of being a felon 

in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See ECF Nos. 38, 70. On August 

30, 2017, the Court sentenced the Defendant to 100 months imprisonment on Count I and 25 

months imprisonment on Count II, to be served concurrently, followed by two years of 

supervised release. See Sentencing, ECF No. 100. 

 On June 23, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion for Early Release [ECF No. 152] asking 

for compassionate release due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 24, 2020, the 

Court issued an Order [ECF No. 155] referring this matter to the Federal Community Defender 

to consider filing a supplemental brief in support of Defendant’s request. On July 8, 2020, 

counsel entered an appearance [ECF No. 156] on behalf of Defendant, and, on August 10, 2020, 

counsel filed a Brief in Support of Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF No. 160]. On 

August 24, 2020, the Government filed a Response [ECF No. 163] opposing Defendant’s 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00055-TLS-SLC document 176 filed 02/22/21 page 1 of 5
2 

motion. On September 14, 2020, the Court denied the Defendant’s request for compassionate 

release. See Sept. 14, 2020 OP. & Order, ECF No. 164. 

 On September 17, 2020, the Defendant appealed the Court’s September 14, 2020 Opinion 

and Order. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 165. On February 16, 2021, the Defendant filed the 

instant Letter [ECF No. 175], asking the Court to reconsider its September 14, 2020 ruling. 

ANALYSIS 

 In his Letter, the Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its September 14, 2020 decision 

denying his request for compassionate release, asserting that conditions at the prison where he is 

housed have deteriorated. As an initial matter, the Court must address whether it has jurisdiction 

to consider the Defendant’s request for reconsideration filed while the Defendant’s appeal is 

pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers 

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects 

of the case involved in the appeal.” Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193 (7th Cir. 1995) 

(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). However, 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(a) provides: 

(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief that the court 

lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is 

pending, the court may: 

(1) defer considering the motion; 

(2) deny the motion; or 

(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands 

for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a); see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n.42 (1984) (“The District 

Court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion and either deny the motion on its merits, or certify 

its intention to grant the motion to the Court of Appeals, which could then entertain a motion to 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00055-TLS-SLC document 176 filed 02/22/21 page 2 of 5
3 

remand the case.” (collecting cases)); United States v. Turner, No. 3:03-CR-22, 2011 WL 

294837, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2011). Because the Court is denying the Defendant’s request 

for reconsideration, no jurisdictional issue exists. 

 Turning to the Defendant’s request for reconsideration, the Court finds that the new facts 

presented do not warrant changing its earlier decision. “Motions for reconsideration serve a 

limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered 

evidence,” United States v. Jackson-Bey, No. 2:09-CR-43, 2012 WL 3044288, at *1 (N.D. Ind. 

July 24, 2012) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int’l Fid. Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665 (N.D. Ill. 

1982)), and “are . . . not vehicles for ‘rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters 

that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion,” id. (quoting Caisse 

Nationale De Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996)). 

The Defendant’s Letter does not argue that the Court erred in applying the law in its 

September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order. However, the Defendant’s Letter does introduce new 

facts: that FCI Schuylkill, where the Defendant is incarcerated, had an outbreak of COVID-19 in 

December 2020 with at least 200 new cases and that, as of February 11, 2021, there has been an 

outbreak of COVID-19 in the Defendant’s housing unit. 

Even if these new facts were to cause the Court to conclude that the Defendant can 

demonstrate an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting his release, the Court would not 

alter its final disposition in the September 14, 2020 Opinion and Order. As the Court explained, 

to succeed on a motion for compassionate release, four requirements must be met: “exhaustion of 

administrative remedies, consideration of whether ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ 

warrant a reduction in the term of imprisonment, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, and 

consistency with the applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements.” Sept. 14, 2020 Op. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00055-TLS-SLC document 176 filed 02/22/21 page 3 of 5
4 

& Order 3, ECF No. 164. Separate from the status of the COVID-19 pandemic at FCI Schuylkill 

and the Defendant’s personal health issues of Type II diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and asthma, the 

Court concluded in the Opinion and Order that the § 3553(a) factors did not support reducing the 

Defendant’s term of imprisonment. Id. at 11–12. 

When considering the § 3553(a) factors, the Court wrote: 

Defendant’s criminal history has spanned almost thirty years and includes multiple 

convictions for battery as well as a conviction for resisting law enforcement. His 

February 24, 2011 domestic battery conviction involved him choking his girlfriend 

and punching her in the face; his August 5, 2011 battery conviction involved him 

arguing with the mother of his children, culminating in him throwing a soda can 

that struck his three-year-old son in the head; and his 2013 domestic battery 

conviction involved him hitting, kicking, and stomping Heather Gaff, which 

appeared to be mutual battery because she had hit him in the face with a tea pot. 

Revised Final PSR ¶¶ 66, 69, 72, ECF No. 97. And, in the instant case, after 

knocking on the apartment door, Defendant forced his way into the home of his exgirlfriend and the mother of his three children, put a gun to her head, and knocked 

her to the floor, all in the presence of at least one of their minor children. Id. ¶¶ 4, 

6, 7. Then, Defendant fought Anthony Wamue over the gun, with the fight moving 

out the back door of the apartment, where Wamue eventually got the gun away 

from Defendant. Id. ¶ 5. The Government represents that, while in prison, 

Defendant was sanctioned on February 10, 2020, for being absent from callout, and 

on February 29, 2020, for possessing stolen property. See Gov’t Resp. at 20. 

 Although Defendant had a difficult upbringing and adult life, those factors 

were considered at the time of his original sentence and were offered as mitigation 

for a reduced sentence. The nature and circumstances of the instant offense and the 

history and characteristics of Defendant do not warrant a sentence reduction. In 

addition, Defendant has only served approximately half of his sentence of 100 

months. With good time credit, Defendant’s projected release date is October 22, 

2023, with a full-term release date of December 18, 2024. Gov’t Resp. at 7. As of 

July 9, 2020, Defendant has served 54.2 percent of his good-time credit sentence 

and 46.6 percent of his full-term sentence. Id. Defendant has presented no 

compelling argument to change the Court’s finding that the original sentence of 100 

months imprisonment was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the 

sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Id. The Defendant presents no new facts that would lead the Court to change its prior decision 

regarding the § 3553(a) factors; therefore, the Defendant’s request for reconsideration is denied. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00055-TLS-SLC document 176 filed 02/22/21 page 4 of 5
5 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the relief requested in the Defendant’s 

Letter [ECF No. 175]. 

 SO ORDERED on February 22, 2021. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00055-TLS-SLC document 176 filed 02/22/21 page 5 of 5