United States v. JHONG
2:22-cr-00852
D.N.J.Jun 30, 2025Background
- John Jhong pleaded guilty to bank fraud, money laundering, and misuse of a social security number, receiving concurrent 36-month sentences and an order to pay $2,127,391 in restitution.
- Jhong filed multiple pro se motions for compassionate release, citing the need to care for his elderly father, chronic health conditions, and his rehabilitation in prison.
- His initial request for compassionate release at USP Canaan was properly denied after the exhaustion of administrative remedies; subsequent requests followed his transfer to Brooklyn MDC.
- Jhong also moved to reduce his restitution obligation, alleging an error in calculation related to a government loan amount.
- The government opposed the motions, and the court evaluated compliance with the First Step Act's requirements and whether "extraordinary and compelling" reasons existed for release.
Issues
| Issue | Jhong's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compassionate release for family care | He was his elderly father's primary caregiver; father needs him | No evidence Jhong is the sole caregiver; siblings available | Not extraordinary/compelling; motion denied |
| Compassionate release for health | Chronic conditions (heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea) are not getting proper care | Medical needs have been met in custody; no evidence of untreatable condition | Not extraordinary/compelling; motion denied |
| Rehabilitation as basis for release | Participation in programs, remorse support release | Rehabilitation expected, not extraordinary | Not extraordinary/compelling; motion denied |
| Restitution calculation error | Amount owed includes miscalculated SBA loan | Restitution was agreed to and not objected to in plea | No reduction; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (court's limited authority to modify sentences once imposed)
- United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255 (3d Cir. 2021) (framework for compassionate release: must show extraordinary and compelling reasons, consistent with policy statements, and consider § 3553 factors)
- United States v. Coles, 2021 WL 1210109 (3d Cir. 2021) (need to be sole caregiver to establish extraordinary family circumstances)
- United States v. Coleman, 848 F. App’x 65 (3d Cir. 2021) (chronic conditions treated in custody generally not extraordinary or compelling)
- United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (compassionate release factors and the significance of deterrence)