1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 09-cr-20002 

 District Judge Paul D. Borman 

ROBERT MICHAEL PIZZINO, 

 

 Defendant. / 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ROBERT MICHAEL PIZZINO'S 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A) 

BACKGROUND 

 Defendant Robert Pizzino filed a Motion for Compassionate Release. (ECF 

No. 64.) The parties agree that Defendant has timely exhausted his administrative 

rights/ remedies within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and that this Motion is 

properly before this Court. 

 At his plea hearing on May 21, 2009 (before Judge Gerald Rosen) Defendant 

admitted to viewing and distributing large amounts of child pornography over a 

10-year period. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant--then 65 years old--stated that he was not 

taking any medication, that he was diabetic, but is no longer diabetic, that he no 

longer has high blood pressure, and that he had bariatric surgery four years ago. 

(ECF No. 18, PageID 76.) At that hearing, his attorney put on the record that 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.679 Filed 12/28/20 Page 1 of 8
2 

Defendant had "a matter in Macomb County Circuit Court where you've proffered 

a no contest [nolo contendere] plea to a criminal sexual conduct offense," and was 

awaiting sentence. (Id. at PageID 89.) 

 Defendant's Presentence Report Guideline Offense Level Computation 

included enhancements for material involving a prepubescent minor or a minor 

who had not attained the age of 12 years, and for material that portrays sadistic or 

masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence. (PSR, p. 6, ¶¶ 18, 20.) 

 Defendant's PSR also explicated that his Michigan state court conviction for 

Criminal Sexual Conduct III, which occurred within the latter part of the 10-year 

pornography distribution conduct in the instant case, involved hands-on sexual 

contact by Defendant, victimizing a 15-year-old minor girl, in his care on 

weekends, time and again, for over five months. (PSR p. 5, ¶ 11, p. 7 ¶ 33.) 

 Defendant was sentenced by Judge Rosen on September 2, 2009 to 180 

months incarceration (15 years) on his federal charge of distribution of child 

pornography. 

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant contends that he is fearful that "he will succumb to the COVID19 pandemic due to his precarious medical situation, particularly in light of the 

uncontradicted recognition that this novel coronavirus is ravaging our penal 

institutions." (ECF No. 64, PageID 317.) 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.680 Filed 12/28/20 Page 2 of 8
3 

 The Court notes that on December 23, 2020, Defendant was incarcerated at 

FCI-Ashland (KY), where 32 inmates were COVID-19 positive; 309 had 

recovered; 15 staff positive; 29 staff recovered. (Per BOP Attorney Supervisor 

Tracy Knutson, St. Louis, MO, December 28, 2020.) 

 Defendant contends that he is "76 years old, suffers from diabetes, obesity, 

arthritis, chronic bronchitis/pneumonia, and high blood pressure." (ECF No. 64, 

PageID 336.) 

 The Court notes that the recent decision by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Jones, (__ F.3d __ 2020), 2020 

WL 6817488 (November 20, 2020), held that the district court is not limited in its 

determination of "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentencing reduction, 

to those examples set forth in United States Sentencing Guideline 1B1.13. 

 Both the Defendant and the Government agree that the current worldwide 

pandemic caused by COVID-19 presents an extraordinary and compelling reason 

for compassionate release. Nevertheless, as discussed infra, the Government 

concludes that compassionate release is not warranted in this case. 

 The Court recognizes the broad scope of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in 

particular, its increasing impact within the BOP. At the same time, the Court is 

well aware that in ruling on Defendant's Motion, it must initially consider the 

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.681 Filed 12/28/20 Page 3 of 8
4 

applicable, if it finds extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant a sentence 

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 

1001 (6th Cir. 2020). 

 Defendant's Motion contends that "Mr. Pizzino's offense should not be 

construed as violent, and he is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to 

the community." (Id. at PageID 354.) (Citation omitted.) The Court disagrees with 

Defendant's contention that this offense should not be construed as violent. 

 Defendant notes that he has served in excess of 75 percent of his sentence. 

(Id.) Defendant attaches his BOP medical records highlighting: 

Diabetes mellitus, Type II (adult onset); 

Morbid obesity; 

Hypertension, benign essential; 

Hyperlipidemia, unspecified; 

Bariatric surgery status; 

Bronchitis, acute in 2016; and 

Pneumonia in 2016. 

(BOP medical records, ECF No. 70, Exhibit B, PageID 412-415.) 

 Defendant attaches notes from a 2009 private sex offender treatment 

program that he attended prior to his sentencing. (Id., Exhibit D, PageID 421-432.) 

 The Government Response in Opposition notes that Defendant declined to 

participate in the BOP Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) during his 11 

years of incarceration. (ECF No.72-3, Exhibits to the United States' Response 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.682 Filed 12/28/20 Page 4 of 8
5 

Opposing the Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release or Request for Home 

Confinement, PageID 616.) 

 The Government Response contends that Defendant does not qualify for 

compassionate release because, if released, he would be a significant danger to the 

community, and children in particular. 

 The Government further notes: 

First, as an initial matter, the Government agrees that 

Pizzino's circumstances qualify as "extraordinary," 

Pizzino's medical records establish that he has diabetes 

mellitus (Type II), obesity, and chronic bronchitis, which 

the CDC has confirmed are risk factors that place a 

person at increased risk of severe illness form COVID19...The Court should note that on October 1, 2020, 

Pizzino reported that "he is doing well and has no new 

complaints." (Government Exhibit 1, 2). The medical 

report notes that he is "overall doing well and states he 

lost some weight and that made him feel better." (Gov 

Exhibit 1, 2). 

(ECF No. 72, PageID 448.) 

 The Government contends that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

strongly weigh against compassionate release: 

Before ordering relief, the court must consider the factors 

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determine that 

release is appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A 

defendant's failure to establish that the § 3553(a) factors 

support relief is an independent basis for denying 

compassionate release. United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 

1000, 1001 (6th Cir. 2020). 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.683 Filed 12/28/20 Page 5 of 8
6 

Even when extraordinary and compelling 

reasons exist, the statute leaves district 

courts with discretion to deny relief under a 

balancing of the sentencing factors in § 

3553(a). 

The Ruffin opinion further noted "Despite the serious nature of his health 

conditions, Ruffin was receiving regular medical treatment to manage those 

conditions." Ruffin, at 1009. So too here with regard to Pizzino. 

 Defendant's Reply indicates significant skepticism about the success of the 

BOP's efforts to protect inmates from COVID-19. (Id. at PageID 627.) 

 Defendant's Reply asserts that he has been a model prisoner in the last 11 

years, and does not present a danger upon release. 

 In response to the Government's assertion, and BOP evidence, that 

Defendant declined to participate in SOTP program, Defendant notes his attending 

67 sessions at private group sex offender therapy prior to his 2009 incarceration, 

and contends that his decision in 2011 to not sign up for SOTP participation was 

after a prison psychologist informed him that he would be required, as a condition 

of supervised release, to participate in a similar program. Thus, Defendant now 

seeks release to the community without having sought or received any postsentence sex offender treatment within the BOP. 

 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.684 Filed 12/28/20 Page 6 of 8
7 

 Finally, Defendant asserts that, if released, he will be immediately 

transferred to the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections to determine 

his request for state parole on his concurrent 2009 sentence of 24-40 months that 

he has completed years ago. Thus, it appears that all that remains on his state 

sentence is his transfer to the Michigan Department of Corrections and its 

officially granting parole. 

CONCLUSION 

 As the Sixth Circuit noted in United States v. Schrank, 975 F.3d 534, 536 

(2020): 

Child pornography is an abhorrent offense that scars the 

children affected forever. 

This is true here, even more so, because Defendant was convicted in state court of 

also being a pedophile. 

 Defendant's prospective release date is March 1, 2022. He is 76 years old. 

He committed the child pornography crimes over a 10-year period concluding with 

his arrest in 2008 when he was 64 years old. He committed his coercive, hands-on, 

sexual predator offenses against a 15-year-old girl in 2007 and 2008 when he was 

in his 60's. (PSR, p. 7, ¶¶ 37-38.) Defendant has not enrolled in any SOTP during 

his 11 years of BOP custody. 

 While the Court recognizes that COVID-19 creates a new and significant 

health risk within the Bureau of Prisons, the Court also notes that the BOP is 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.685 Filed 12/28/20 Page 7 of 8
8 

taking steps to deal with this pandemic in its institutions. Wilson v. Williams, 961 

F.3d 829, 844 (6th Cir. 2020). At the same time, the Court recognizes that since the 

Wilson decision in June, 2020, the number of COVID-19 cases within BOP 

institutions has increased. 

 Defendant is addicted to child pornography and is also a vicious child 

predator, who during his lengthy term of imprisonment, declined to take 

rehabilitative SOTP programs. This indicates to the Court a lack of sincere 

rehabilitation. 

 The Court finds that the overriding determinative factor in this case, in its 

consideration of Defendant Pizzino's Motion for Compassionate Release under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), is U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C): to protect the public from 

further crimes of the Defendant. 

 The Court concludes that, if released, Defendant Pizzino remains a danger to 

the community--the public, and children in particular. There is a need to protect the 

community from further similar criminality by him if released. 

 Accordingly the Court DENIES Defendant Robert Michael Pizzino's Motion 

for Compassionate Release. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 28, 2020 s/Paul D. Borman 

 PAUL D. BORMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cr-20002-PDB-DAS ECF No. 77, PageID.686 Filed 12/28/20 Page 8 of 8