United States v. Donald, 5:18-cr-50098

On March 13, 2019, Jermaine Donald pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); PSR attributed 459 grams of actual meth and seized cash and distribution-level cocaine from his residence.
Sentencing: calculated Guideline range 151–188 months (Total Offense Level 29, Criminal History VI as a career offender); the Court varied downward and imposed a 120‑month prison term.
Donald is 37, housed at FCI Forrest City Medium, has served ~29 months, projected release May 3, 2027.
He filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing hypertension, obesity, hyperlipidemia/high cholesterol, and elevated COVID‑19 risk.
He submitted a compassionate‑release request to the warden on October 28, 2020; the Government did not contest exhaustion and the Court found the 30‑day administrative exhaustion requirement satisfied.
The Court denied the motion: even assuming Donald’s medical conditions could qualify as extraordinary and compelling, the § 3553(a) factors weigh against reducing his sentence or granting release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Donald)	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Did not contest exhaustion	Submitted warden request Oct 28, 2020; >30 days elapsed	Exhaustion satisfied; Court may consider the motion
Extraordinary and compelling reasons (medical/COVID risk)	Implicitly disputed necessity; Government opposed release overall	Medical conditions (hypertension, obesity, hyperlipidemia) raise COVID risk and justify release	Court assumed arguendo conditions might qualify but did not rely on that as basis for relief
Application of § 3553(a) factors to compassionate release	Opposed release: offense severity, distribution quantities, cash, career‑offender history justify original sentence	Only served ~29 months; COVID risk and health warrant reduction	Denied: § 3553(a) factors weigh against release; 120 months appropriate to reflect seriousness, deterrence, and avoid sentencing disparity
Authority to order home confinement	BOP, not the Court, controls place of confinement under FSA	Requested to serve remainder in home confinement	Court noted it lacks authority to place inmate in home confinement; only BOP may do so

None — the opinion did not rely on any judicial opinions with official reporter citations; it cited the Sentencing Commission policy statement and a WL decision for guidance.