United States v. Winston
Criminal No. 1994-0296
| D.D.C. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- In 1993 Winston supplied crack at the Fulton Hotel and murdered two rival dealers; he pleaded guilty in 1995 to drug offenses and to second-degree murder while armed.
- Judge Green imposed 121 months for the narcotics count (served) and a consecutive 15‑years‑to‑life term for one murder; a D.C. Superior Court term of 15‑years‑to‑life for the other murder was later reduced to time served by Judge Iscoe.
- Winston has served ~17.5 years on the remaining 15‑to‑life sentence and was granted parole with a release date of January 4, 2022.
- Winston moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing COVID‑19, hypertension, obesity, prior rehabilitation, youth at time of offenses, length of incarceration, and the prior compassionate‑release grant.
- The BOP records show Winston contracted and recovered from COVID‑19, refused the Moderna vaccine, and FCI Allenwood reported zero current positive cases with substantial inmate vaccination.
- The Court denied the compassionate release motion, concluding Winston failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion | Winston submitted requests to the warden and waited >30 days | Government contended exhaustion satisfied | Court: Winston exhausted administrative remedies (warden denied; followup pending but >30 days) |
| COVID‑19 risk and medical conditions | COVID‑19 plus hypertension and obesity create extraordinary risk | Government: Winston recovered from COVID‑19, refused vaccine, facility has no active cases and many inmates vaccinated | Court: Risk not extraordinary—age not high risk, recovery from COVID, vaccine refusal undermines claim, facility conditions reduce risk |
| Other grounds (rehabilitation, time served, youth, prior relief, parole) | Combined factors (rehab, long confinement, young at offense, prior D.C. release, parole date) render circumstances extraordinary | Government: These factors are not "very exceptional" and parole/other decisions are not dispositive | Court: These factors, alone or combined, do not meet the "extraordinary and compelling" standard; prior Superior Court release and Parole Commission decision carry limited weight |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to establish eligibility for compassionate release)
- United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (mere existence of COVID‑19 in prison is not alone extraordinary)
- United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 does not constrain court when defendant brings motion)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (respect for sentence finality informs post‑conviction relief)
- Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486 (2020) (use plain meaning when statute lacks definition)