1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D-1 KIMANI HARDGE, 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:08-cr-20487-1 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KIMANI HARDGE, 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:08-cr-20488-1 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING MOTIONS FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE [118; 74] 

 Defendant Kimani Hardge moved for compassionate release under the First 

Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in the above cases.1 Defendant argued that the 

Court should reduce his sentence because he is concerned about suffering from health 

complications if he contracts COVID-19. ECF 118, PgID 662, 664. The Government 

responded that Defendant’s concerns do not warrant a sentence reduction as an 

1 Because the motions are identical, the Court will, for simplicity, cite the filings on 

the 08-cr-20487-1 docket. 

Case 2:08-cr-20488-SJM-SDP ECF No. 78, PageID.436 Filed 01/19/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

“extraordinary and compelling reason” under the First Step Act. ECF 120, PgID 746, 

762–63. The Court agrees and will deny the motions for that reason. 

Under the First Step Act’s compassionate release provision, the Court may 

modify Defendant’s sentence only if: (1) he has exhausted all administrative 

remedies, or (2) thirty days have passed since the warden received Defendant’s 

request for the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on his behalf. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The exhaustion condition is “mandatory.” United States v. Alam, 960 

F.3d 831, 833–34 (6th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 

Because Defendant has exhausted his request for compassionate release, ECF 120, 

PgID 762, he must satisfy “three substantive requirements” for the Court to grant 

compassionate release. United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1004 (6th Cir. 2020). 

First, the Court must “find[] that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction.” Id. at 1003 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Second, the Court 

must “find that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements 

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. at 1005 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

(alterations omitted)); but see United States v. Hampton, 985 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 

2021) (explaining that district courts “may now ‘skip step two’” because there is no 

applicable policy statement) (quoting United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th 

Cir. 2020)). And third, the Court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors. Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1005 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 

For the first requirement, Defendant must show that “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” warrant a reduction in sentence. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Sixth 

Case 2:08-cr-20488-SJM-SDP ECF No. 78, PageID.437 Filed 01/19/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

Circuit has held “that a defendant’s incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic—

when the defendant has access to the COVID-19 vaccine—does not present an 

‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ warranting a sentence reduction.” United 

States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747, 751 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v. Broadfield, 

5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021)). Because Defendant is fully vaccinated against 

COVID-19, ECF 121-2, PgID 825, 842 (under seal), Defendant’s COVID-19 concerns 

are therefore not “extraordinary and compelling.” As a result, the Court will deny the 

compassionate release motions. 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions for compassionate 

release [118; 74] are DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: January 19, 2022 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on January 19, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/ David P. Parker 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:08-cr-20488-SJM-SDP ECF No. 78, PageID.438 Filed 01/19/22 Page 3 of 3