United States v. Helm
1:19-cr-00077
D. Del.Mar 2, 2022Background
- Defendant Jeffrey Helm, age 35, convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; sentenced to concurrent terms (sentence discussed as 72 months); detained since June 2019 with anticipated release in 2026.
- Helm moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing asthma, COVID-19 outbreaks at FCI Fort Dix, and the alleged incapacity of his daughter's caregiver; the Government opposed.
- Medical record and Government submissions indicate Helm received two doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, previously tested positive for COVID-19 (asymptomatic), and that ~70% of Fort Dix inmates were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 11, 2022.
- Helm submitted evidence of vocational coursework and certificates; the BOP record shows a disciplinary sanction for possession of a hazardous tool on Nov. 23, 2021.
- Helm alleged his daughter’s legal guardian and his mother-in-law have significant health/substance problems; he provided no proof of a guardian adjudicated unfit or that he would obtain custody if released; records show drugs/paraphernalia were found in the child’s bedroom.
Issues
| Issue | Helm's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Helm met administrative exhaustion for a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion | Helm filed pro se and satisfied the 30-day lapse/exhaustion requirement | Government concedes exhaustion was met | Exhaustion satisfied (agreed) |
| Whether Helm's asthma and COVID-19 risk constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release | Asthma + outbreaks at Fort Dix + prior BOP failures create heightened risk of grave COVID-19 illness | Helm is vaccinated, has no documented severe asthma; BOP mitigation and vaccination reduce risk | Denied — medical risk is not extraordinary/compelling given vaccination and records |
| Whether family circumstances (caregiver incapacity) qualify as extraordinary and compelling | Caregiver and mother-in-law have medical/addiction issues; child at risk without Helm | No evidence a guardian was officially found unfit; unclear Helm would obtain custody; prior crimes and child-room paraphernalia undermine custody claim | Denied — family circumstances unsupported and not compelling |
| Whether § 3553(a) sentencing factors warrant release even if extraordinary and compelling reasons existed | Helm cites rehabilitation, good conduct, and family need | Nature of offenses, criminal history, public-protection and deterrence, short proportion of sentence served, and prior downward variance weigh against release | Denied — § 3553(a) factors weigh against compassionate release |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (district court may not modify a sentence except as authorized by statute)
- United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255 (3d Cir. 2021) (First Step Act procedure added but compassionate-release standards remain governed by existing law)
- United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (existence of COVID-19 in prisons alone does not justify compassionate release)
- United States v. Roeder, [citation="803 F. App'x 157"] (3d Cir. 2020) (pandemic risk alone insufficient for release)
- United States v. Nichols, [citation="849 F. App'x 334"] (3d Cir. 2021) (smoking history does not automatically justify compassionate release)
- United States v. Cole, [citation="859 F. App'x 634"] (3d Cir. 2021) (§ 3553(a) factors can independently defeat a compassionate-release motion)