USA v. Oliver
Criminal No. 2000-0157
| D.D.C. | Jul 12, 2021Background
- Deon Oliver was convicted by jury of drug conspiracy, RICO conspiracy, multiple murders (including aiding and abetting two murders), and related firearms offenses; sentenced to life plus 60 years; has served ~14.5 years.
- Oliver moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), seeking time served with home detention, citing numerous serious medical conditions and COVID-19 risk.
- The Government opposed, arguing Oliver recovered from COVID-19, refused the Pfizer vaccine, and that § 3553(a) factors and his prison record weigh against release.
- The Court found Oliver exhausted administrative remedies (warden received request and did not respond within 30 days) but rejected his claim that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist.
- Key reasons for denial: Oliver is relatively young (44), already recovered from COVID-19, declined vaccination, facility (FCC Hazelton) had no active cases and high inmate vaccination rate, and § 3553(a) factors (violent offense history, disciplinary infractions, limited rehabilitation) weigh heavily against release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Oliver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Warden received request; no timely BOP motion so court review proper | Oliver contends he submitted request and did not receive warden response | Court: Exhaustion satisfied (30 days elapsed without response) |
| Extraordinary and compelling reasons due to medical conditions / COVID-19 | Argued Oliver recovered from COVID-19 and vaccine refusal undercuts COVID-based risk | Oliver asserted serious comorbidities (cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc.) make him high-risk for severe COVID-19 | Court: Not extraordinary — recovery from COVID, age, and facility conditions (no active cases, high vaccination) defeat § 3582 threshold |
| Relevance of vaccine refusal | Vaccine refusal substantially diminishes COVID-related release claims | Oliver declined vaccine (no valid medical/religious exemption asserted) but still claims risk from conditions | Court: Refusal undermines claim; courts generally view refusal as reducing entitlement to release |
| Application of § 3553(a) factors | Denial urged: offenses extremely serious, lengthy criminal history, disciplinary record, lack of rehabilitation; release would not reflect seriousness or protect public | Oliver urged mitigating background (traumatic childhood), alleged sentencing disparities, and claimed risk outweighs factors | Court: Even if threshold met, § 3553(a) factors weigh strongly against reduction; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (presence of COVID-19 in society and possibility of spread in prison alone cannot justify compassionate release)
- United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to show eligibility for sentence reduction under § 3582)
- United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement inapplicable when motion is filed by defendant rather than BOP)