UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 1:16-CR-43-HAB 

 ) 

FREDERICK MOORE ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Frederick Moore filed a letter with the Court requesting immediate release and/or sentence 

modification due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 167). The request was forwarded to the 

Federal Community Defender who has declined to represent Defendant. (ECF No. 170). The 

Government has filed its response in opposition to Defendant’s request (ECF No. 172), and 

Defendant has filed his reply (ECF No. 176). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. 

A. Defendant’s Crimes 

 Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment alleging Conspiracy to Distribute and 

Possess with Intent to Distribute 1 kg or More of Heroin and 500 g or More of Cocaine and 

Maintaining a Dwelling for the Purpose of Distributing a Controlled Substance. The indictment 

arose out of an extensive investigation into a multi-state drug distribution network. The 

investigation showed that Defendant was receiving kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin at 

his home and then distributing the drugs throughout northeast Indiana and Michigan. The PSIR 

noted the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy to be between 3,000 and 10,000 kg converted 

drug weight. 

 Defendant pled guilty to the Conspiracy count in exchange for the dismissal of the 

Maintaining a Dwelling count. On October 24, 2019, Defendant was sentenced to a term of 78 

months’ imprisonment in the BOP with five years of supervised release to follow. Defendant is 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 177 filed 09/03/20 page 1 of 6
2 

currently serving that sentence at Morgantown FCI in Morgantown, West Virginia. His anticipated 

release date is February 22, 2022. 

B. Legal Analysis 

Defendant’s filings request a sentencing modification. 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 permits the court to reduce a sentence 

based on a retroactively applicable amendment to the sentencing guidelines that lowers the 

defendant’s guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Another allows a court to grant an inmate 

compassionate release if the inmate meets certain requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

 Defendant seeks compassionate release pursuant to § 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 motions, he must first 

demonstrate that he meets the statutory exhaustion requirement to proceed further. The 

Government concedes that Defendant requested release from his warden, that the request was 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 177 filed 09/03/20 page 2 of 6
3 

denied, and that more than thirty days have elapsed since the denial. Therefore, the Court finds 

that administrative remedies have been exhausted in this case. 

The thrust of Defendant’s motion is that his numerous health conditions put him at 

increased risk for serious complications from COVID-19, although his reply narrowed the focus 

to Defendant’s obesity. The Court has been provided with Defendant’s medical records, both by 

Defendant and the Government, and has reviewed those records. 

Congress did not define “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in the statute, instead 

delegating the matter to the Sentencing Commission to promulgate a policy statement that 

"describe[s] what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence 

reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples." 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 

The policy statement, contained in United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 1B1.13 and 

the accompanying Application Notes, in line with the statutory directive in § 3582(c)(1)(A), 

requires a court to make several findings. 

First, the court must address whether "[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the 

reduction" and whether the reduction is otherwise "consistent with this policy statement." U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13(1)(A), (3). To this end, a court is to consider the medical condition of the defendant, his 

age, his family circumstances, and whether there exists in the defendant’s case an extraordinary or 

compelling reason “other than or in combination with” the other reasons described in the 

Application Notes. Second, the Court must determine whether the defendant is "a danger to the 

safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)." U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.13(2). Finally, the Court must consider the § 3553(a) factors, "to the extent they are 

applicable." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 177 filed 09/03/20 page 3 of 6
4 

Additionally, when the defendant moves for a reduction based on COVID-19, Courts have 

also considered: (1) the specificity of the defendant’s COVID-19 concerns, (2) whether the 

defendant has a medical condition that makes him especially susceptible to the dangers of COVID19, and (3) the extent that the defendant’s release would mitigate or aggravate the COVID-19 

pandemic. United States v. Barrett, No. 2:17-CR-1, 2020 WL 3264112, at *3 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 

2020); see also United States v. Davis, No. 2:19-CR-74-3, 2020 WL 1951652, at *1–2 (N.D. Ind. 

Apr. 23, 2020) (applying similar factors to consider whether there was a “compelling reason” for 

pretrial release due to the COVID-19 pandemic). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, “§ 

3582(c)(1)(A) contemplates a sentence reduction for specific individuals based on the individuals’ 

particular circumstances of where he is housed and his personal health conditions.” United States 

v. Melgarejo, No. 12-cr-20050, 2020 WL 2395982, at *3 (C.D.Ill. May 12, 2020). 

 In this case, Defendant’s filings give this Court very few reasons, let alone extraordinary 

or compelling ones, to justify granting the Motion. It is true that Defendant is obese. The CDC is 

clear that a body mass index of 30 or above increases your risk of severe illness from COVID-19. 

See Center for Disease Control, Coronavirus Disease 2019, People with Certain Medical 

Conditions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-withmedical-conditions.html. And, weighing in at 250 pounds on his 6’0” frame, Defendant exceeds 

that number. However, there is no suggestion in the medical records that Defendant’s obesity is 

the result of some underlying medical condition. Instead, it appears to be the result of bad habits 

and lifestyle choices; Defendant admits as much. The Court struggles to believe that an individual 

should obtain the extraordinary relief of compassionate release simply because they have failed to 

take care of themselves. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 177 filed 09/03/20 page 4 of 6
5 

As for Defendant’s confinement, Morgantown FCI has administered 50 tests and has no 

positive cases of COVID-19 as of the date of this order. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. 

However, even if the number was much higher, “the mere presence of COVID-19 in a particular 

prison cannot justify compassionate release—if it could, every inmate in that prison could obtain 

release.” See Melgarejo, 2020 WL 2395982, at *3. Rather, “a prisoner [may] satisfy the 

extraordinary and compelling reasons requirement by showing that his particular institution is 

facing a serious outbreak of COVID-19 infections, the institution is unable to successfully contain 

the outbreak, and his health condition places him at significant risk of complications should he 

contract the virus.” Id. at 5–6. See also United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) 

(“[T]he mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular 

prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate release.”). 

The Bureau of Prisons continues to take serious and substantial steps to reduce the spread 

of COVID-19 within its facilities. See BOP Implementing Modified Operations, 

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19_status.jsp. Morgantown FCI’s zero positive tests speak 

to the efficacy of the BOP’s protocols. 

Finally, with respect to the §3553(a) factors, the Court observes that Defendant received a 

significant sentence. This sentence was imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote 

respect for the law as well as to afford adequate deterrence and to protect the public from further 

crimes of the defendant. Here, Defendant was a major drug distributor, part of an operation that 

flooded parts of two states with thousands of kilograms of converted drug weight. The Court 

cannot conclude that the § 3553(a) factors warrant any reduction in Defendant’s sentence.

In sum, because this Court does not find extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist 

for Defendant’s release and a reduction of sentence is inconsistent with the § 3553(a) factors, 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 177 filed 09/03/20 page 5 of 6
6 

Defendant does not meet the criteria for compassionate release and his request for compassionate 

release (ECF No. 167) is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on September 3, 2020. 

 s/ Holly A. Brady 

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00043-HAB-SLC document 177 filed 09/03/20 page 6 of 6