United States v. Golson
5:17-cr-00050
E.D. Ky.Jan 29, 2021Background:
- On August 1, 2017, Brandon Golson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥100 grams of heroin and was sentenced to 144 months on December 7, 2017.
- Golson moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); the Government concedes he exhausted administrative remedies.
- The First Step Act permits defendants (after exhaustion) to move courts directly for compassionate release; the Sixth Circuit treats exhaustion as a mandatory condition.
- Golson is designated a career offender based on prior serious drug convictions and had a revoked term of supervised release for subsequent drug trafficking; the probation office affirmed the career-offender status remains valid.
- The court found Golson’s health/ COVID-19 risk no more compelling than typical inmate risks and emphasized the seriousness of his instant and prior offenses.
- The court denied Golson’s motion on January 29, 2021, concluding § 3553(a) factors weigh against release.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court jurisdiction to hear a defendant-filed § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion | Golson: he exhausted BOP remedies; court may grant compassionate release | Government: conceded exhaustion; no jurisdictional challenge | Court: has authority to consider the motion because exhaustion requirement was met |
| Whether defendant showed "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for release | Golson: health/COVID-19 risks and other circumstances warrant reduction | Court/Gov: Golson’s conditions are not more serious than typical pandemic risks; no persuasive extraordinary circumstances shown | Court: even if such reasons existed, they are insufficient given other factors |
| Application of § 3553(a) sentencing factors | Golson: reduced sentence is appropriate in equities | Court: § 3553(a) factors (seriousness, deterrence, public protection) weigh heavily against release given offense and history | Court: § 3553(a) factors preclude compassionate release |
| Challenge to career-offender designation | Golson: prior convictions underlying career-offender status are "attempt" crimes and may not qualify under Havis | Government/Court: Golson offered no legal/evidentiary support; PSR and probation office confirm designation was valid | Court: rejected the argument; career-offender status remains a valid guideline determination |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020) (exhaustion/lapse requirement is mandatory and courts must enforce it when properly invoked)
- United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2019) (interpretation of what prior convictions count for career-offender analysis)