1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES

v. Criminal No. 18-29 (JEB)

ANTHONY BROOKS, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Defendant Anthony Brooks is serving a ten-year mandatory-minimum sentence for 

transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. He now moves for the 

fourth time for compassionate release on the grounds that his medical conditions and the 

situation in his prison facility render him susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and suffering 

severe symptoms. Brooks argues that these conditions constitute “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” warranting his release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because Defendant, who 

has been vaccinated and has recovered from a COVID-19 infection, has not demonstrated that he 

meets the statute’s requirements, the Court will again deny the Motion without prejudice. If his 

underlying circumstances change, he may seek relief in the future. 

I. Background

A. Factual Background 

In early 2020, the United States was struck by the COVID-19 pandemic, which, as of this 

writing, has caused the deaths of over one million people. See Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest 

Map and Case Count, The New York Times, https://nyti.ms/3NvdBLm, (last visited June 29, 

2022). Incarcerated individuals have been threatened in particular, given their inability to isolate 
2

or take other precautionary measures on their own. At the Federal Correctional Institution in

Danbury, Connecticut, where Brooks is housed among 1,024 inmates, there have been a total of 

417 positive COVID-19 tests since the outset of the pandemic. See COVID-19 Vaccine 

Implementation, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited June 29, 2022) (noting that 

number of positive tests does not equal number of cases because inmates can be tested more than 

once); FCI Danbury Facility Information, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/dan/ 

(last visited June 29, 2022). In addition, 934 of the 1,024 total inmates in the facility have been 

fully vaccinated. See COVID-19 Inmate Test Information, BOP, 

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 2022) (noting that these data do not 

include booster vaccinations). Today, there are zero inmates infected with COVID-19 at FCI 

Danbury. See COVID-19 Cases, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 

2022). Since the outset of the pandemic, one inmate at FCI Danbury has died, and 318 have 

recovered after being infected with COVID-19. Id.

B. Procedural History 

Brooks filed his first Motion for Compassionate Release in April 2020, citing a “serious 

heart condition” and asthma as health conditions that increased his risk of experiencing severe 

COVID-19 symptoms. See ECF No. 53 (First Def. Mot.), ¶ 7. The Court denied that motion 

without prejudice, pending the results of a concurrent civil proceeding concerning prison 

conditions for all Danbury inmates. See Minute Order of April 23, 2020; Martinez-Brooks v. 

Easter, 459 F. Supp. 3d 411, 454–56 (D. Conn. 2020). That litigation resulted in an order 

requiring the Warden of FCI Danbury to identify inmates at increased risk of a severe reaction to 

COVID-19 in order to prioritize them for transfer to home confinement. Id. In the Warden’s 

analysis, Brooks was not recommended for home confinement because he was assessed to “not 
3

have any risk factors that would put him at a higher risk of developing severe illness as a result 

of COVID-19 based on CDC guidelines.” ECF No. 64 (Gov. Suppl.) at 3 (quoting ECF No. 64-1 

(Brooks COVID-19 Home Confinement Review Sheet)). 

Brooks then filed a Second Motion for Compassionate Release in June 2020, generally

citing the same grounds as his first — namely, that the dangerous conditions at the facility, 

combined with his “serious heart condition” and “chronic asthma,” created extraordinary and 

compelling reasons meriting his early release. See ECF No. 59 (Second Def. Mot.), ¶ 2. The 

Court in December 2020 denied that Motion without prejudice again, concluding that 

Defendant’s heart and asthma conditions did not qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warranting his release. United States v. Brooks, No. 18-29, 2020 WL 7186157, at *2–3 (D.D.C. 

December 7, 2020). One month later, Brooks filed a third Motion for Compassionate Release, 

see ECF No. 67 (Third Def. Mot.), which the Court also denied on the basis that his health 

conditions and the COVID-19-related conditions at FCI Danbury did not require his release, 

especially following the national rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. See ECF No. 73 (Order) at 

1–2. 

Defendant is back once more, this time with his fourth Motion for Compassionate 

Release, contending that his medical conditions and FCI Danbury’s failure to protect him and 

other inmates from the COVID-19 virus qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons 

meriting his release. See ECF No. 76 (Fourth Def. Mot.) at 3–5. In response, the Government 

asserts that Brooks cannot challenge the constitutionality of his prison conditions in this 

proceeding, see ECF No. 79 (Govt. Opp.) at 25–26, and that he fails to establish that his health 

conditions meet the exacting standard. Id. at 15–21. 
4

II. Legal Standard 

Federal courts “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,” 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c), aside from “a few narrow exceptions.” Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 

522, 526 (2011). One such exception provides for compassionate release, which defendants may 

seek after exhausting administrative remedies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (as modified by 

the First Step Act of 2018). This section allows a court to reduce a final sentence “after 

considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if 

it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and the “reduction is 

consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id.

In its applicable pre-COVID policy statement, the Sentencing Commission offers 

examples of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that center on terminal illness, deteriorating 

health and inability to care for oneself, and incapacitation of family members. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13, cmts. (1)(A)–(C). In light of the COVID-19 crisis, however, courts have invoked 

Section 1B1.13, cmt. (1)(D), which acknowledges that reasons “other than, or in combination 

with, the reasons described” in (A)–(C) may present extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances. Courts across the country have determined that the COVID-19 pandemic may 

constitute such an additional reason, especially when the defendant is housed at a facility 

experiencing a COVID outbreak and suffers from a health condition that increases the likelihood 

that he will experience serious symptoms upon contracting the virus. See, e.g., United States v. 

Morris, No. 12-154, 2020 WL 2735651, at *7 (D.D.C. May 24, 2020) (finding extraordinary and 

compelling circumstances when medical conditions made defendant “particularly vulnerable to 

severe COVID-19 infection” in light of Section 1B1.13(1), cmt. (1)(A)’s focus on self-care); 

United States v. Johnson, 464 F. Supp. 3d 22, 38 (D.D.C. 2020) (“The compelling need for [the 
5

defendant], in particular, to be released from . . . custody relates primarily to [his] heightened 

risk of having serious medical complications if he were to contract COVID-19.”); United States 

v. Lacy, No. 15-30038, 2020 WL 2093363, at *6 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2020) (finding extraordinary 

and compelling reasons given defendant’s medical conditions in combination with COVID-19 

pandemic); United States v. McCarthy, 453 F. Supp. 3d 520, 527 (D. Conn. 2020) (finding 

extraordinary and compelling reasons when defendant’s medical conditions “substantially 

increase his risk of severe illness if he contracts COVID-19”). Courts rarely hold that the 

pandemic alone means that an inmate who is not particularly susceptible to severe symptoms 

should be released. See United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he mere 

existence of COVID-19 in society . . . cannot independently justify compassionate release.”). 

If the court finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons merit early release, it must 

then consider the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) “to the extent that they are 

applicable,” U.S.S.G § 1B1.13; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), “presumably with an eye toward 

whether it is necessary to maintain the prior term of imprisonment despite the extraordinary and 

compelling reasons to modify the defendant’s sentence.” Johnson, 464 F. Supp. 3d at 30. When

the factors allow it, a court may then modify the sentence to time served. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A).

III. Analysis 

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 

The first requirement — namely, that Defendant exhaust all administrative remedies

before a term of imprisonment can be modified — is not at issue in this case. The Government 

concedes that Brooks has satisfied his exhaustion requirements. See Govt. Opp. at 15. The 

Court thus considers only whether he has established extraordinary and compelling reasons 
6

warranting his release. 

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

In requesting compassionate release, Defendant cites both his health and the conditions at 

FCI Danbury. The Court considers each separately. 

1. Health Conditions

Brooks alleges that if he is infected with COVID-19, his “serious heart condition” and 

“chronic asthma” will threaten his life. See Fourth Def. Mot. at 1–2. The Centers for Disease 

Control states that “moderate-to-severe” asthma increases the likelihood that an affected 

individual will be hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. See People with Moderate to Severe 

Asthma, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (April 7, 2021), https://bit.ly/3HZcy5e. As 

the Court has previously held, however, Defendant’s claim that his asthma is “moderate-tosevere” is unsupported by his medical records from the Bureau of Prisons, which do not suggest 

that his asthma is elevated. Brooks, 2020 WL 7186157, at *3; ECF No. 59-2 (Def. Medical 

Records). Brooks offers no reason here for the Court to change its findings with respect to his 

asthma.

Defendant’s “serious heart condition” also fails to qualify as an extraordinary and 

compelling reason. The CDC states that heart conditions including “heart failure, coronary 

artery disease, cardiomyopathies, and possibly high blood pressure (hypertension)” can increase 

the severity of COVID-19 symptoms. See People with Certain Medical Conditions, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (May 2, 2022), https://bit.ly/3QU34wh. Yet, the Court earlier 

noted that Brooks’s medical report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons only indicates “certain 

‘trace’ and ‘mild’ heart symptoms without diagnosis.” Brooks, 2020 WL 7186157, at *3. The 

Court has also found that Defendant’s blood pressure fails to consistently reach the required 
7

severity. See Order at 1 (noting that Brooks has had normal blood-pressure readings in every 

test since a high blood-pressure reading in September 2020). Defendant also offers no 

compelling reason to revise the Court’s findings with respect to his heart conditions. 

Brooks, moreover, received his second dose of the Moderna vaccine on May 17, 2021. 

See Govt. Opp. at 18. As the Court has previously stated, being vaccinated substantially 

diminishes one’s risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing severe symptoms. See Order at 

2. In fact, “Defendant . . . tested positive for COVID-19 in January 2022 but was 

asymptomatic.” Govt. Opp. at 19. Courts repeatedly find that an inmate’s recovery from

COVID-19 balances heavily against finding extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence 

reduction or release. See United States v. Winston, No. 94-296, 2021 WL 2592959, at *4 

(D.D.C. June 24, 2021) (denying motion for compassionate release in part because defendant had 

contracted COVID-19 and remained asymptomatic); United States v. Williams, No. 11-172, 

2020 WL 6826740, at *6 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2020) (providing that, although COVID-19 

diagnosis “does not moot [a] motion for compassionate release,” fact that defendant 

“successfully weathered a previous infection without the need for hospitalization and without 

any apparent lasting effects” weighed against his argument that his conditions were extraordinary 

and compelling); United States v. Wagner, No. 18-155(1), 2020 WL 4034009, at *4 (E.D. Tex. 

July 15, 2020) (holding that after defendant contracted COVID-19 and recovered, “the risks of 

complications or death that he contend[ed were] extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

compassionate release [were] no longer germane”); but see United States v. King, No. 18-318, 

2021 WL 880029, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2021) (granting defendant’s motion for compassionate 

release because of his medical conditions, new virus variants, risk of reinfection, his facility’s 

poor control of the virus, and the time elapsed since his last infection).
8

The Court thus concludes that Defendant’s health conditions alone do not qualify as 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his release, especially considering his previous 

asymptomatic infection and vaccinations. 

2. Conditions at FCI Danbury 

Brooks also emphasizes that BOP has failed to protect inmates at FCI Danbury from the 

COVID-19 pandemic. His Motion states that at the time of its filing, on February 28, 2022, there 

were three active inmate cases and four active staff cases of COVID-19. See Fourth Def. Mot. at 

3. He also alleges that more than a dozen inmates tested positive for COVID-19 and were then 

returned to their dorms with other inmates, including Brooks, who, after testing positive for 

COVID-19, was placed in a dormitory that contained bunk beds separated by only three feet. Id. 

The Motion also cites visits by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy to the facility in 

January 2022, who commented that they were denied access to certain parts of the facility while

cases were high. Id. at 3–4. 

In response, the Government contends that allegations concerning the conditions of 

Defendant’s confinement are not properly before the Court because challenges to the 

constitutionality of BOP’s actions must be filed as a civil suit separate from the underlying 

criminal case. See Govt. Opp. at 25. This position mischaracterizes Brooks’s argument, 

however. His Motion does not offer a constitutional challenge; instead, he attempts to invoke the 

conditions as extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. 

Courts regularly take into consideration a prison facility’s failure to protect inmates from 

COVID-19 when deciding whether to grant a motion for compassionate release. See, e.g., 

United States v. Babbitt, 496 F. Supp. 3d 903, 909 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (stating that courts should 

consider “the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant’s health conditions, . . . 
9

and the risk of contracting COVID-19 at the defendant’s facility,” but noting that no single factor 

is dispositive) (emphasis added). Instances in which a facility’s conditions influenced a court’s 

decision on a motion for compassionate release, however, involve far worse conditions than the 

situation at FCI Danbury. See, e.g., id. at 912 (granting release from facility that failed to test 

and isolate defendant when there had been almost one thousand cases and nine deaths caused by 

COVID-19 in half a year); United States v. Keys, No. 16-234, 2020 WL 6700412, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 13, 2020) (granting release in part because over 574 total inmates had been infected 

and ten inmates had died from COVID-19 in the facility); United States v. Patrick, No. 17-38, 

2021 WL 164554, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 19, 2021) (granting release in part because over 36% of 

facility’s inmates were infected at time of opinion). 

At the time Defendant filed this Motion, there were four active staff cases at FCI 

Danbury and three active inmate cases out of the 1,029 total inmates incarcerated. See Govt. 

Opp. at 21. In total, 318 inmates in FCI Danbury have recovered from the virus since the 

beginning of the pandemic. See COVID-19 Vaccine Implementation, BOP, 

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 2022). In addition, around 91% (934 of 

1,024) inmates have been vaccinated twice, further reducing Defendant’s risk of contracting the 

virus again while incarcerated. See id.; see also United States v. Mata, No. 15-44, 2021 WL 

851876, at *2 (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2021) (finding that there were no extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for release at FCI Danbury, in part because facility was adequately controlling COVID19). 

While no clearly established line has been drawn by the courts, the numbers cited in 

Defendant’s Motion concerning the situation at FCI Danbury are nowhere near the same highrisk level as the previously mentioned cases, nor do they seem to indicate that the facility was 
10

experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak. The facility, furthermore, is experiencing nothing of 

concern at the time of this Opinion, as zero inmates at FCI Danbury are currently infected. See 

COVID-19 Cases, BOP, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 29, 2022). Even if 

the Court were to find that the facility’s conditions qualify as extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for Defendant’s release, courts have found that prison conditions in themselves are not 

dispositive and should be considered alongside the inmate’s health conditions. See, e.g., United 

States v. Stephens, No. 16-20677, 2021 WL 243159, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2021) (denying 

compassionate release to inmate despite outbreak of COVID-19 in prison because he lacked 

requisite medical risk factors). In any event, the Court finds that the conditions in FCI Danbury 

do not rise to a level where they might be considered extraordinary and compelling. 

IV. Conclusion 

As Brooks does not meet the extraordinary-and-compelling standard warranting 

compassionate release, the Court will deny his Motion. A separate Order so stating will issue 

this day. 

/s/ James E. Boasberg

JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

Date: June 29, 2022