United States v. Davis
2:15-cr-00136
E.D. Wis.Apr 21, 2021Background
- In April–May 2015, Tacoby Davis and co-defendant Tajuan Green committed armed robberies of pharmacy areas at Walgreen’s and CVS in Milwaukee; both brandished firearms and stole narcotics and cash.
- Law enforcement recovered firearms consistent with those used, drugs, an assault rifle from Davis’s bedroom, and a getaway car that had been reported stolen.
- Davis pleaded guilty to two Hobbs Act robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); he had no prior convictions at sentencing but had pending state charges.
- On July 21, 2016 the court sentenced Davis to 114 months (30 months on the robberies, consecutive 84 months on § 924(c)); Green later received 54 months after substantial cooperation.
- Davis sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (pro se then by counsel/Federal Defender Services), citing asthma/COVID risk, post‑sentencing rehabilitation, co‑defendant disparity, and legal changes (Dean). The warden denied his request and Davis moved in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion | Gov't: Davis did not present asthma/medical specifics to warden, so did not exhaust that ground. | Davis: He exhausted by requesting release to the warden for COVID risks and waited >30 days; his health risk is not the main driver. | Court: Warden requests mentioned COVID generally but not asthma; gov't correct as to medical exhaustion; court nevertheless addressed merits. |
| Dean / change in law as "extraordinary and compelling" | Gov't: Dean is not a basis for relief here; change in law is not automatically controlling. | Davis: Dean undermines prior sentencing rationale and supports reducing his underlying term by 18 months. | Court: Even assuming Dean can be considered, Davis’s sentencing judge did not say the sentence was compelled by precedent; Dean does not provide relief here. |
| Co‑defendant sentencing disparity | Gov't: Green’s lower sentence was justified by substantial, valuable cooperation (5K/3553(e) motion). | Davis: Sentences are disparate (114 vs 54 months) despite similar roles; disparity supports reduction. | Court: Disparity is explained by Green’s extensive cooperation; this does not constitute extraordinary and compelling reason. |
| Medical risk / COVID‑19 and rehabilitation | Gov't: Davis’s records do not document asthma or moderate/severe condition; he recovered from an asymptomatic COVID case; prison status improved. | Davis: Has asthma since birth (controlled); contracted COVID at FCI Greenville; prison conditions and reinfection risk justify reduction; also cites rehabilitation and programming. | Court: Davis presented no medical evidence of moderate/severe asthma; he is young and healthy, recovered from COVID, and his speculative reinfection risk plus ordinary rehabilitation do not satisfy extraordinary and compelling standard. |
| §3553(a) balancing and scope of relief | Gov't: Even if some grounds considered, §3553(a) factors (seriousness, deterrence, public protection, later state convictions) weigh against reduction. | Davis: Requests an 18‑month reduction (to 96 months), arguing it remains substantial and satisfies sentencing goals given maturation. | Court: §3553(a) factors outweigh defendant’s arguments; the 114‑month sentence remains appropriate; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooker v. United States, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (First Step Act freed district courts to consider a broad range of "extraordinary and compelling" reasons)
- Gunn v. United States, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (Guidelines' policy statement not binding post‑First Step Act; court retains discretion)
- McCoy v. United States, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (change in law re: § 924(c) stacking can support compassionate‑release reduction in appropriate cases)
- Sanford v. United States, 986 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2021) (First Step Act exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claim‑processing rule)
- Williams v. United States, 987 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2021) (inmate must present the same or similar grounds to BOP as in the court motion to satisfy exhaustion)
- Saunders v. United States, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (even with extraordinary reasons, courts must weigh §3553(a) factors before granting relief)
- Bartlett v. United States, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (co‑defendant cooperation can justify disparate sentences)
- Roberson v. United States, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007) (pre‑Dean precedent on limits to adjusting underlying sentences to offset §924(c) terms)
- Ikegwuonu v. United States, 826 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2016) (same line as Roberson on §924(c) stacking)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (Supreme Court overruled Roberson/Ikegwuonu on sentencing calculations under §924(c))