539 F.Supp.3d 613
S.D. Miss.2021Background
- Mark J. Calhoun was convicted (2010 trial) on multiple counts of fraud/money laundering and sentenced on June 6, 2011 to 200 months’ imprisonment (below guideline range; guideline range was life).
- Calhoun filed successive compassionate-release motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); he exhausted administrative remedies and sought relief based on age, serious medical conditions, COVID-19 risk, and BOP’s transfer decisions.
- The BOP transferred Calhoun to home confinement on May 5, 2020; he has had no disciplinary infractions while there.
- Calhoun is approaching age 65, suffered a heart attack while incarcerated, and has chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, gout, hypertensive retinopathy); he will reach ten years served on August 1, 2021.
- The Government acknowledged Calhoun may be returned to custody and that he will soon satisfy U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 Application Note 1(B), but asked the court to wait for six more months or DOJ guidance.
- The court found extraordinary and compelling reasons, concluded § 3553(a) did not preclude release, reduced the 200‑month sentence to time served, and ordered supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) | United States did not dispute exhaustion. | Calhoun had exhausted administrative remedies (or 30‑day lapse). | Exhaustion satisfied; court proceeds to merits. |
| Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement | Gov: court should wait until Calhoun strictly meets App. Note 1(B) or until DOJ/BOP guidance because §1B1.13 guides relief. | Calhoun: §1B1.13 is non‑binding post‑Shkambi; nearly satisfies Note 1(B) now. | §1B1.13 not binding for prisoner motions per Shkambi; court may consider it but need not defer to its technical timing. |
| Extraordinary and compelling reasons | Gov: urged delay until App. Note criteria are fully met or DOJ guidance issued. | Calhoun: age, serious medical conditions, COVID risk, and BOP’s prior release to home confinement constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons. | Court: medical conditions, imminent satisfaction of Note 1(B), BOP’s prior home confinement, and lack of infractions amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons. |
| § 3553(a) factors and public safety | Gov: implicitly argued additional confinement might be warranted for penological reasons. | Calhoun: non‑violent, minimal criminal history, BOP deemed him appropriate for home confinement; supervised release will facilitate reentry. | Court: §3553(a) factors do not preclude release; no showing Calhoun is a danger; modification to time served is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding the Sentencing Commission’s §1B1.13 is not the binding policy statement for prisoner‑filed §3582 motions)
- United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining §1B1.13 commentary can inform what counts as extraordinary and compelling)
- United States v. Berry, 951 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2020) (rule of orderliness on panel precedent)
- Hill v. Carroll Cnty., 587 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2009) (discussing limits on overruling earlier panel decisions)