United States v. McGee
1:11-cr-00114
| M.D. Ala. | Apr 6, 2022Background
- Defendant Melissa McGee pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting kidnapping and was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment in January 2013. Her projected BOP release date is May 17, 2026.
- McGee filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) on February 23, 2022, arguing erroneous BOP classification, sentencing disparities with co‑defendants, COVID‑19 risk, and COPD.
- The Government opposed, asserting McGee failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that her claims lack merit. McGee replied asserting exhaustion but did not clarify the administrative bases.
- The court previously denied McGee’s earlier compassionate‑release requests and her motion to reconsider; her conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
- The court granted motions to seal sensitive filings and denied McGee’s 2022 motion, concluding her proffered reasons do not qualify as "extraordinary and compelling" under the applicable policy statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | McGee contends she exhausted remedies (asserted in reply). | Government contends McGee failed to exhaust and earlier filings were procedurally defective. | Court found the record unclear on exhaustion but assumed exhaustion for analysis and denied relief on the merits. |
| Medical risk (COPD and COVID‑19) as "extraordinary and compelling" | McGee argues COPD and COVID risk justify release. | Government argues conditions are not terminal nor substantially diminish self‑care in custody per U.S.S.G. §1B1.13. | Court held medical conditions do not meet §1B1.13 criteria; not extraordinary and compelling. |
| BOP classification and sentencing disparity as "other reasons" | McGee asserts erroneous classification and sentencing disparity justify release. | Government argues "other reasons" are limited to those identified by the BOP Director. | Court held such reasons are not cognizable for compassionate release unless the BOP Director has so determined. |
| Need to analyze §3553(a) factors and community danger | McGee implicitly argues release is appropriate considering disparities/health. | Government argues sentencing factors weigh against release. | Court declined to analyze §3553(a) because no extraordinary and compelling reason was shown; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) (a sentence reduction under §3582(c)(1)(A) must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statement).
- United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343 (11th Cir. 2021) ("other reasons" for compassionate release are limited to determinations made by the BOP Director).
- United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234 (11th Cir. 2021) (if any required condition for compassionate release is absent, relief is precluded).
- United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court authority to modify a sentence is narrowly constrained).
- United States v. McGee, [citation="540 F. App'x 948"] (11th Cir. 2013) (appellate affirmance of conviction and sentence).