[Dkt. No. 88] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 

 : 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 : Crim. No. 10-434 (RMB) 

 v. : 

 : 

FREDERICK SELLERS : OPINION

 : 

 On April 6, 2016, this Court sentenced Defendant Frederick 

Sellers to 188 months, and subsequently reduced the sentence to 

151 months. The sentence was the result of a jury’s verdict 

finding Defendant guilty of a conspiracy to distribute five 

kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant 

now moves for compassionate release under the First Step Act and 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A). For the following reasons, the 

Motion is DENIED. 

 The recently enacted First Step Act allows a defendant to 

be afforded compassionate release for “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A)(i). The statute 

provides in relevant part: 

(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment. 

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once 

it has been imposed except that— 

(1) in any case— 

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the 

Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant 

Case 1:10-cr-00434-RMB Document 92 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1497
2 

after the defendant has fully exhausted all 

administrative rights to appeal a failure of the 

Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s 

behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of 

such a request by the warden of the defendant’s 

facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of 

imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or 

supervised release with or without conditions that 

does not exceed the unserved portion of the original 

term of imprisonment), after considering the factors 

set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they 

are applicable, if it finds that 

(i)extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant 

such a reduction; or [...] 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (emphasis added). 

Thus, under the First Step Act, a defendant seeking a reduction 

in his term of imprisonment bears the burden of satisfying both 

that he has (1) exhausted remedies before seeking judicial 

review, and (2) that compelling and extraordinary reasons exist 

to justify compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A). 

 At the time of filing of his Motion, the requisite thirty 

days waiting period had not passed. That would have foreclosed 

this Court’s review. United States v. Raia, __F.3d.__, 2020 WL 

1647922, at *2 (3d Cir, 2020).1 As of the time of this Court’s 

Opinion, the thirty days waiting period expired on April 23, 

2020, and the Court has not received notice that the Bureau of 

Prisons acted on Defendant’s request. Thus, because the 

exhaustion period under the statute is no longer a hurdle to 

 

1 The Court need not engage in a discussion as to whether 

exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. 

Case 1:10-cr-00434-RMB Document 92 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1498
3 

this Court’s decision, the Court turns to the Defendant’s 

essential argument that the COVID-19 pandemic that is facing 

this country presents an “extraordinary and compelling reason” 

for his release. 

 Defendant is currently housed at the Metropolitan Detention 

Center, a 1,700 inmate facility in Brooklyn, New York (“MDC”). 

As of the time of the filing of the Motion, MDC had confirmed 9 

positive COVID-19 inmates and 14 positive COVID-19 staff 

members. Defendant believes his entire unit has been exposed 

together and is being medically quarantined together. He 

contends that his diabetes “makes him especially vulnerable” to 

severe illness should he contract COVID-19. Defendant further 

argues that the MDC generally lacks an adequate medical 

infrastructure and supplies to address the spread and treatment 

of the prisoners with the COVID-19 virus. After the filing of 

the Motion, Defendant informed his counsel that his cellmate was 

displaying apparently worsening COVID-19 symptoms. See Dkt. No. 

91. The Court notes that this was brought to the attention of 

the institution’s nurse who addressed it. See id.2 

 

2 Defendant criticizes the nurse’s response to Defendant’s 

cellmate as “disturbing” and a “callous lack of medical 

attention to an asthmatic BOP inmate with COVID-19.” There is 

no support that the inmate was COVID-19 positive. Nor is there 

any point in disparaging a medical professional who has just as 

an incentive to prevent the spread of the deadly virus as does 

the Defendant. 

Case 1:10-cr-00434-RMB Document 92 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1499
4 

 The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that 

the Bureau of Prisons is incapable of protecting Defendant’s 

health. As the Government has introduced, the Bureau of Prisons 

has procedures in place to protect the prisoners. See 

http://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19_status.jsp (last accessed 

April 15, 2020). Defendant does not respond to these particular 

procedures and how they would not help him but simply argues 

that the “best evidence that the BOP cannot control the spread 

of coronavirus is that the BOP has not controlled the spread of 

coronavirus.” See Dkt. No.91, at 10. Such statement is not 

helpful. 

The Court finds the measures instituted by the BOP to be 

reasonable to address the virus outbreak. Defendant informed 

his counsel that he is in a cell with an inmate he believes to 

be COVID-19 positive. And yet by Defendant’s own account, a 

nurse was present to address the inmate’s condition. Moreover, 

even assuming Defendant was exposed to the virus and is 

unfortunately COVID-19 positive, Defendant has not addressed how 

releasing him to others where quarantine is not possible for the 

transportation to Pennsylvania justifies his release. 

 Even if the Court were to grant Defendant’s Motion, the 

Court is concerned what that decision may mean in practical 

terms. If this Court were to grant Defendant’s release, he will 

be immediately transported to a Pennsylvania correctional 

Case 1:10-cr-00434-RMB Document 92 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1500
5 

institution because there is a detainer lodged against him as a 

result of a murder in the third degree conviction. Thus, in 

actuality, Defendant’s Motion is not one for release but for a 

transfer. This scenario adds a whole new layer of risks that 

the Court is not prepared to take, i.e. additional law 

enforcement officers, a new inmate population, etc. This 

additional expanded social contact at this point presents more 

risks. 

In this Court’s final analysis, this Court does not mean to 

minimize the serious risks that COVID-19 poses in our federal 

prisons. But the Court finds that based on the Defendant’s 

particular individual situation, the BOP is best positioned at 

this juncture to determine the proper course of action, 

balancing the concerns of health and safety, of all involved. 

The Motion is DENIED. 

.

s/Renée Marie Bumb_________ 

 RENÉE MARIE BUMB 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: April 24, 2020 

Case 1:10-cr-00434-RMB Document 92 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1501