United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
A. SARGUS, JR. JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant William Ingram's
("Ingram") Compassionate Release Motion
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No.
36.) The Government responded (ECF No, 40) and therefore
Ingram's motion is ripe for review. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court DENIES Ingram's
Compassionate Release Motion. (ECF No. 36.)
March 20, 2014, Ingram plead guilty to a one-count
Information that charged him with receiving child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
(See ECF No. 11.) The same day, Ingram appeared
before the Magistrate Judge and was ordered released pending
his sentencing, subject to numerous conditions and the
supervision of a Pretrial Services Officer. (See ECF
No. 9.) Within two weeks, Ingram's supervising Pretrial
Services Officer notified the Court that Ingram had violated
his terms of release by possessing two devices capable of
accessing the Internet. (ECF No. 13.)
April 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge held a show cause
hearing where the Pretrial Services Officer testified how he
discovered Ingram had possessed the prohibited devices and
about how he subsequently learned that Ingram had also used
the computer of Ingram's mother, despite the Pretrial
Services Officer's prior warnings to refrain from doing
so. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Ingram had violated
the terms of his presentencing release and that, given his
prior criminal history, no conditions of release could ensure
that Ingram would not pose a danger to the safety of any
other person or the community, if released. (ECF No. 19.)
Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") that was
prepared for Ingram recommended a sentence of 150 months of
incarceration, which was in the middle of the calculated
guideline range, based on a 31 total offense level and
category III criminal history. On July 15, 2014, the Court
sentenced Ingram to 94 months of incarceration and a 10-year
term of supervised release. (ECF No. 26.) Ingram is currently
due to be released from the BOP on February 7, 2020.
29, 2019, Ingram filed the current motion, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), requesting this Court to
order the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to immediately
release him from incarceration so that he can care for his
93-year-old mother. According to the exhibits Ingram attached
to his motion, his mother suffers from chronic kidney disease
and multiple myeloma. (ECF No. 36, Exs. A, B, C, D.) She is
currently in hospice and has no other relatives to care for
1984, when Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act, federal
law has authorized courts to reduce the sentences of federal
prisoners with extraordinary health concerns and other
hardships, but only under limited circumstances. See
Pub. L. No. 98-473, ch. 11(D) § 3582(c)(1)(A), 98 Stat.
1837 (1984). Prior to the passage of the First Step Act of
2018, district courts could grant compassionate release
sentence reductions only upon motion by the Director of the
BOP. See id.
December 21, 2018, Section 603(b) of the First Step Act, Pub.
L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, modified 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a sentencing court to reduce an
imposed sentence either upon a motion of the Director of the
BOP "or upon motion of the defendant after [he] has
fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure
of the [BOP] to bring a motion on [his] behalf or the lapse
of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden
of the defendant's facility...."
the Sentencing Reform Act as amended by the First Step Act, a
defendant must satisfy one of two conditions before a court
can grant a compassionate release sentence reduction. Either
(i) the defendant must be at least 70 years old, have served
at least 30 years in prison, and the BOP Director must have
determined the defendant is not a danger to the public; or
(ii) "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant
a reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The later
provision is at issue in this case.
seeks relief under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which (as stated
above) authorizes the Court to reduce his sentence upon
finding that "extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction...." Ingram asserts that he has
exhausted his administrative rights to appeal the BOP's
failure to move to reduce his sentence, and the Government
does not dispute that assertion. Therefore, the Court may
consider Ingram's motion.
argues that he has extraordinary and compelling family
circumstances that warrant his compassionate release. While
the Court empathizes with the Ingram family's difficult
situation and understands that Mrs. Ingram's medical
conditions are no doubt serious, family circumstances that
constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons"
simply do not include Ingram's ...