1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FLORENCE BIKUNDI,

Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 14-30-1 (BAH)

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is defendant Florence Bikundi’s pro se Motion for 

Reconsideration of Compassionate Release Due to New Evidence (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 659. 

Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), ECF No. 

653, was denied, on September 14, 2020, because defendant did not demonstrate that a reduction 

in her sentence was warranted upon consideration of the requisite factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Memorandum Opinion & Order (“Mem. & Order”) at 8, 11, ECF No. 658. Defendant now 

moves for reconsideration on two grounds: first, that the Court erred in determining that 

defendant made a misrepresentation in the request for sentence reduction form filed with the 

facility in which she is incarcerated and, second, that worsening COVID-19 conditions at her 

facility warrant compassionate release. Neither ground warrants reconsideration.

In resolving motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(1)(A), the 

court may reduce a term of imprisonment only “after considering the factors set forth in [18 

U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” id., and upon making two findings: first, 

that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” id. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); 

and, second, “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission,” id. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). The applicable policy statement set out in 
2

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, like the statutory requirements, provides that a reduction of a term of 

imprisonment may be warranted, “after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 

to the extent that they are applicable,” id., and when “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant the reduction,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(1)(A). The policy statement also requires a 

determination that “the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the 

community.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2). The government conceded in its briefing on defendant’s 

motion for compassionate release that defendant’s medical condition presented an extraordinary 

and compelling reason for a reduction, but nonetheless no reduction was determined to be 

appropriate in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Mem. & Order at 

8-10. Thus, defendant’s motion for compassionate release was denied. Id. at 11.

As to defendant’s first argument for reconsideration, she contends that the government 

misstated, and the Court misinterpreted, what was written in the Request for Reduction In 

Sentence (“RIS”) form she completed and submitted to the Warden of the Federal Correctional 

Institution at Hazelton (“FCI Hazelton”), Def.’s Mot. at 5, and that the denial of her motion for 

compassionate release was in part predicated on this misstatement. Specifically, the RIS form 

poses the following four straight-forward questions under “1. Proposed Release Plan”: “Where 

will you reside and with whom?”; “How will you support yourself?”; “Where will you receive 

medical treatment?”; and “How will you pay for medical treatment?” Gov’t’s Opp’n to Def.’s 

Mot. for Compassionate Release, Ex. C at 3, ECF No. 656-3. In response to the second 

question—“[h]ow will you support yourself?”—defendant answered, “I am a [r]egistered nurse 

by profession with lots of experience. I also have a BA background from the University of 

Maryland, College Park. I have lots of family members as well (doctors, pharmacists, nurses, 

etc.).” Id.
3

Defendant says that her response to this question was not meant to indicate she planned 

to work as a nurse, but rather that she would, if released, be able to ensure that her medical needs 

were met. Def.’s Mot. at 4. She strains to read the second question as a “financial question” 

about “how inmates would pay for medical expenses if released from prison,” id., explaining that 

her response ‘was that [her] son and other family member had pledged to help [her] financially,” 

id. This is revisionist history. Defendant’s response clearly indicates that she would support

herself as a registered nurse if she were released, and defendant is not licensed as a nurse in any 

jurisdiction. As the Court has previously noted, “lying about [her nursing credentials] is what 

resulted in her exclusion from participation in any federal health care program and thus underlies 

her conviction in this case.” Mem. & Order at 9 (citing United States v. Bikundi, Crim. Case No. 

14-30 (BAH), 2016 WL 912169, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2016)). Defendant made a similar 

argument regarding the government’s interpretation of this statement in her initial motion for 

compassionate release, which the Court rejected. Mem. & Order at 9 n.5. Defendant presents no 

compelling reason to doubt that she made a misrepresentation on the form, which the Court 

properly considered in considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Second, defendant alleges that a failure to take appropriate precautions to prevent the 

spread of COVID-19 has led to worsening conditions and an increase in the number of COVID19 cases at FCI Hazelton, which puts her at greater risk. Def.’s Mot. at 5–7. According to

defendant, inmates have not recently been provided with hand sanitizer, soap, or new masks, and 

that weekly temperature checks were stopped. Id. at 7. She further alleges that many of the 

guards do not wear masks. Id. Defendant believes that she is at heightened risk from the virus 

because she “experienc[ing] rapid heart palpitations.” Id. at 8. The government responds by 

emphasizing the steps taken by the Warden at FCI Hazelton to help ensure inmate safety, 
4

including suspension of out-of-cell time, as well as “mandatory screening and temperature 

checks for any inmate released from a housing unit[] and ordered meals to be served in the 

housing units.” Gov’t’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Reconsideration (“Gov’t’s Opp’n”) at 6-7, 

ECF No. 662. The government indicates that as of December 18, 2020, 24 inmates (out of over 

1600) and 5 staff members had tested positive for COVID-19 at FCI Hazelton, Gov’t’s Opp’n at 

7, though the website cited by the government now states that 162 inmates and 70 staff have 

tested positive for the virus to date, COVID-19 Cases, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

http://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2021). 

The Court does not take the risks posed by COVID-19 lightly, and the rising number of 

COVID-19 cases at FCI Hazelton is troubling and may indicate, as defendant suggests, lax 

enforcement of safety protocols to reduce the risk of viral transmission. Even assuming that 

worsening conditions at FCI Hazelton present a heightened risk to defendant, however, 

compassionate release would not be warranted. The § 3553(a) sentencing factors weigh heavily 

against a reduced sentence given defendant’s role as “‘the prime moving force behind’ a fraud 

that bilked the District of Columbia’s Medicaid program out of over $80 million.” Mem. & 

Order at 8 (quoting Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 168:22–23, ECF No. 563). Furthermore, “defendant 

was already given a significant departure from her guidelines-recommended sentence of 360 

months to life imprisonment.” Id. at 9. Reducing her already heavily-reduced sentence further 

“would not adequately reflect the seriousness of defendant’s crime.” Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A).

Defendant has not introduced any new evidence demonstrating that a reduction in her 

sentence to a comparatively short period of home confinement is warranted upon consideration 

of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Accordingly, it is hereby
5

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Compassionate Release Due 

to New Evidence, ECF No. 659, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 25, 2021

__________________________

BERYL A. HOWELL

Chief Judge