1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, Case No. 09-20326 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

CLARENCE HENRY COHEN (D-9), 

 

 Defendant-Petitioner. 

_______________________________/ 

 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR REDUCTION IN SENTENCE [628] 

The matter is before the Court on Defendant Clarence Henry Cohen’s emergency 

motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 628.) The 

government opposes the motion. (ECF No. 632.) For the reasons below, the Court 

DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background 

On October 21, 2010, Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. (ECF No. 356.) 

The Court sentenced Defendant to a term of 264 months. (ECF No. 460.) The Sixth Circuit 

affirmed. See United States v. Cohen, 515 F. App’x 405, 414 (6th Cir. 2013). Defendant’s 

sentence was later reduced to 235 months under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (ECF No. 550). 

In 2022, Defendant was released to home confinement under the CARES Act. He is 

projected to be released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on October 1, 2025. 

II. Analysis 

The compassionate release provision set forth in § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows district 

courts to reduce a term of imprisonment for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” See 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 633, PageID.2952 Filed 07/09/24 Page 1 of 4
2

United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1100 (6th Cir. 2020). This is not the first time 

Defendant has invoked § 3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant’s first two motions for compassionate 

release were based primarily upon health concerns associated with the COVID-19 

pandemic. The Court found at the time that Defendant had not established extraordinary 

and compelling reasons warranting his release. (ECF Nos. 588, 601.) By the time 

Defendant filed his third motion for a sentence reduction, he had already been released 

from prison to home confinement. (ECF No. 606.) Nonetheless, he repeated many of his 

previous arguments. He asserted that while he had been working and regaining ties with 

his family, children, and friends, he sought relief because he was unable to buy and fix 

foreclosed properties and take his children “different places.” Defendant also relied on an 

alleged sentencing disparity. The Court again found that Defendant had not presented 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction. (ECF No. 608.) 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of that finding was denied as well. (ECF No. 610.) 

Most recently, Defendant challenged his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF 

No. 620.) In support of that motion, Defendant attached two 2023 orders setting aside 

convictions in state court. (Id. at PageID.2858-62.) Defendant argued that without his 

state conviction, he would have had a lower criminal history category and accompanying 

guidelines range at the time of his original sentencing. The Court found that despite the 

order in the state case, Defendant’s prior conviction would still count towards his criminal 

history if sentenced today and denied his request for relief. (ECF No. 627.) 

Defendant now relies on several of the same issues previously raised, including 

the order setting aside his prior state conviction, an alleged sentencing disparity, the 

harsh circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic, and his rehabilitative efforts. But 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 633, PageID.2953 Filed 07/09/24 Page 2 of 4
3

the Court has already concluded that these arguments do not lead to a conclusion that 

there are extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction. 

Defendant also now cites to a piece of legislation that never became law, the EQUAL Act, 

and a subsequent memorandum issued by the Attorney General of the United States to 

all federal prosecutors, both of which addressed the sentencing disparity between crack 

and powder cocaine. Courts have declined to find that either the bill or the memorandum 

constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. See, e.g., 

United States v. Morgan, 657 F. Supp. 3d 976, 980-81 (E.D. Mich. 2023); see also United 

States v. Quinn, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20660, at *4 (10th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023) (collecting 

cases from courts that have rejected arguments that the EQUAL Act is an extraordinary 

and compelling circumstance); United States v. Ozen, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119014, at 

*10-12 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2023) (noting that policy statements and guidance issued by 

the Attorney General do not legally bind prosecutors and finding that the memorandum 

provided no basis for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)) (citations omitted). The Court 

commends Defendant on his employment history and efforts towards rehabilitation but 

without a finding that there are extraordinary and compelling reasons, it cannot grant him 

the relief he seeks. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction is 

DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: July 9, 2024 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 633, PageID.2954 Filed 07/09/24 Page 3 of 4
4

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

on July 9, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marlena A. Williams 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 633, PageID.2955 Filed 07/09/24 Page 4 of 4