UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

______________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Nos. 09-20130

 18-20251

CHARLES ALOKWU,

Defendant.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE 

In December 2009, Defendant Charles Alokwu was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841 and 846 to 78 months incarceration for conspiring to distribute and possess with 

intent to distribute controlled substances. (ECF No. 12, PageID.24-25.)

Defendant filed a “Motion for Compassionate Release.” (ECF No. 27.) In the 

motion, he argues the health risk presented by the Coronavirus Disease (“COVID-19”) 

at his then location of confinement, Moshannon Valley CI, justifies his immediate 

release. 

The federal compassionate release statute has “three substantive requirements.” 

United States v. Hampton, 985 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2021). First, the court may 

reduce a term of imprisonment if it determines “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Second, the sentencing factors 

provided under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) must weigh in favor of a sentence reduction. Third, 
2

a sentence reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by 

the Sentencing Commission.” Id.

A motion requesting a prisoner’s compassionate release may be filed either by 

the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) or by the prisoner himself. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

The Sixth Circuit held in United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1110-11 (6th Cir. 

2020), that when a prisoner moves for compassionate release himself there is no 

“applicable policy statement[] issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A). Thus, when a prisoner moves for compassionate release, the 

requirement in § 3582(c)(1)(A) that a sentence reduction be “consistent with [a] policy 

statement[]” does not apply, and courts are to ignore it. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1111; accord 

United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2021). To obtain compassionate 

release, a prisoner must nevertheless present “extraordinary and compelling” 

circumstances and must have § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors that weigh in his favor. 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see Jones, 980 F.3d at 1108, 1111 (holding that a court has “full 

discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’” and must also “determine whether, 

in its discretion, [a] reduction . . . is warranted” under § 3553(a)). 

Defendant’s circumstances are still not extraordinary or compelling. 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A). “Extraordinary” is defined as “exceptional to a very marked extent.” 

Extraordinary, Webster’s Third International Dictionary, Unabridged (2020). 

“Compelling” is defined as “tending to convince or convert by or as if by forcefulness of 

evidence.” Compelling, Webster’s Third International Dictionary, Unabridged (2020). 

Courts have interpreted “extraordinary” in the context of compassionate release as 

“beyond what is usual, customary, regular, or common,” and a “‘compelling reason” as 
3

“one so great that irreparable harm or injustice would result if the relief is not granted.”

United States v. Sapp, Case No. 14-20520, 2020 WL 515935, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 

2020) (Leitman, J.); United States v. Murphy, Case No. 15-20411, 2020 WL 2507619, at 

*5 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020) (Cox, J.). A district court’s findings as to extraordinary and 

compelling circumstances are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Elias, 984 F.3d at 

520-21. 

On May 5, 2021, the BOP administered Defendant the first dose of the Pfizer 

COVID-19 vaccine. (ECF No. 36-1, PageID.222. On June 2, 2021, he received the 

second dose and is now fully vaccinated. (See Exhibit 1.) Available scientific evidence 

demonstrates that the Pfizer vaccine is extraordinarily effective at reducing the risk of 

COVID-19 infection. See, e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Overview and 

Safety, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/PfizerBioNTech.html (last visited June 20, 2021) (noting that in clinical trials Pfizer vaccine 

was “95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people 

without evidence of previous infection”); Mark G. Thompson et al., Interim Estimates of 

Vaccine Effectiveness (2021) (finding that mRNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer vaccine, 

are 90% effective at preventing both asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 

infections); Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety 

Concerns, Business Wire, 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210401005365/en/ (last visited June 20, 

2021) (describing a Pfizer study which found that its vaccine was “100% effective in 

preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control”). 
4

The court is aware of no scientifically derived evidence showing that there is a 

material risk of severe complications or death from COVID-19 to fully vaccinated 

individuals. In addition, the BOP has substantially reduced the risk of spread and 

exposure to COVID-19 through its vaccination of other inmates. Defendant is now 

confined at FCI Oakdale II. Out of the 1,839 inmates at FCI Oakdale,

1 1,334 have been 

fully vaccinated. FCI Oakdale II, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/oad/ (last visited June 22, 2021); FCI Oakdale 

I, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/oak/ (last visited 

June 22, 2021); COVID-19: Coronavirus, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited June 22, 2021). Consequently, there are 

only two active cases of COVID-19 among inmates at FCI Oakdale II. COVID-19: 

Coronavirus, supra.

The remote possibility that COVID-19 will spread through FCI Oakdale II, the 

BOP will fail to contain the outbreak, Defendant will contract COVID-19, and he will 

develop life-threatening symptoms does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of 

compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Compassionate Release” (ECF No. 

27) is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The Bureau of Prisons lists only an aggregate number of vaccinations at “FCI 

Oakdale,” which presumably is an aggregation including inmates at both FCI Oakdale I 

& II, so the court has also aggregated the prison population of the two facilities for the 

sake of comparison.
5

Dated: June 22, 2021

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, June 22, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner / 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(810) 292-6522

S:\Cleland\Cleland\AAB\Opinions and Orders\Criminal\09-20130.ALOKWU.MotionforCompassionateRelease.AAB.docx