ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
On February 20, 2003, the court sentenced Defendant Felix Walls to life imprisonment, with five years of supervised release required in the event he were ever released. Now before the court is a motion filed by the United States of America, specifically the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the Government), to modify Defendant Felix Walls's term of imprisonment, reducing it to "time served," or about 22 years. The relevant statute requires that the court find factual support in "extraordinary and compelling reasons [to] warrant such a reduction." 21 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(I). No hearing is required. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).
Typically, a court may not modify a sentence that has been imposed, absent specific, unusual circumstances. The Government brings this motion seeking what is commonly referred to as "compassionate release" as allowed under 21 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(I). Section 3582 provides that:
"[T]he phrase `extraordinary and compelling' generally applies only to inmates who had been diagnosed with a serious and terminal medical condition." Green v. Marberry, No. 06-CV-12410, 2010 WL 2680554, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 6, 2010) (citing United States v. Maldonado, 138 F.Supp.2d 328, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). The court acknowledges that other circumstances as well may present a persuasive case of "extraordinariness." Here, in support of its motion, the Government has submitted a one and-a-half page, five-paragraph motion. The only justification for the requested relief is stated in one cursory paragraph:
(Dkt. # 705, Pg ID 7222.) No further support was submitted with the motion, nor has there been any supplementation since the motion was filed. No supporting medical records have been provided. No affidavits of Bureau officials or doctors have been offered. The court is left with only a bare statement that amounts to noting that the Defendant has over the course of years advanced in age and now suffers from some forms of ill health associated with advancing age. The court is less than overawed by these asserted bases for immediate release.
Assessing the allegedly extraordinary nature of the Defendant's ailments, the court is left to guess at the seriousness of Defendant's conditions. Though the court is hesitant to travel too far down the path of supposition, the court will start with, at least facially, the most serious of Defendant's conditions: Parkinson's disease. The court notes that the Government states only that he has "a history of Parkinson's," without any details provided as to the stage or symptoms of his alleged condition. While the court acknowledges that Parkinson's is not an insignificant disease, it is commonly known that people diagnosed with Parkinson's can hold jobs, function in society, and take care of themselves, depending on the stage of the disease. Indeed, Janet Reno, Attorney General in the Clinton administration, served actively while suffering from advancing Parkinson's symptoms. The court is aware of judicial colleagues, both federal and state, who carry a caseload while at the same time dealing well with the effects of a Parkinson's diagnosis.
Parkinson's is not, in itself, an "extraordinary" circumstance. The Parkinson's Disease Foundation states that "as many as one million Americans live with Parkinson's disease, which is more than the combined number of people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Lou Gehrig's disease. Approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year."
Likewise, Defendant's other stated conditions are relatively common in people of Defendant's demographic. The National Institute of Health states that, of persons ages 65 or older, almost 50% report doctor-diagnosed arthritis. Osteoarthritis is the most common form.
There are, of course, many forms of cardiovascular disease, but no specifics as to Defendant's condition are provided.
Finally, even if the court were to be persuaded that Defendant is utterly confined to wheelchair ambulation, the fact remains that in contemporary society, using a wheelchair is hardly "extraordinary" nor is it a "compelling" reason to justify release. Many people, young and old, whether incarcerated or freely about in the community, can carry on their daily activities while using a wheelchair. Again, while the court does not make light of any of these conditions, individually or cumulatively, the court only points out that merely stating that Defendant allegedly suffers from these conditions, without further evidence or even explanation as to the degree or seriousness of any of them, is not enough to justify the extraordinary relief sought here. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. That carries with it the implied acknowledgment that the ailments of age and deteriorating health may surface during incarceration. Not every aging inmate who is in poor health deserves a reduction to his term of imprisonment.
Moreover, even if the court were to find the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting a reduction, the court would next turn to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to consider whether those factors also support a reduction. The Government offers no analysis of those factors in the instant motion, but in its 2006 resentencing memorandum, the Government argued quite persuasively for life imprisonment:
(Dkt # 606, Pg ID 4921-23.) et seq.
At sentencing, the court explained that Defendant had a "very lengthy, almost lifetime devotion, to the pursuit of the criminal objectives" and a "blatant . . . disregard for societal norms for the laws of the United States" and stated that it would be "better for society for Mr. Walls to spend his remaining years in a secure environment in the federal institution where he will be in large measure, if not completely, restrained from preying upon others as he has done for just about all of his adult life when he was not imprisoned." Upon review of Defendant's challenges to the court's life sentence determination, the Court of Appeals affirmed:
United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728, 737 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 248 (6th Cir. 2006))
The substance of the instant motion is to inform the court that Defendant, now age 75, has accumulated age-related ailments that appear to be entirely common among men of his age (perhaps especially African American men with respect to heart disease). All of this presents a picture of ordinary rather than "extraordinary" circumstances. The Government's incisive 2006 sentencing memorandum explained clearly the Defendant's history, anti-social attitude, and the risk to society of Defendant's potential release. The docket is virtually overflowing with obstreperous and irrelevant motions, requests, and objections filed personally by Defendant and illustrating the continued validity of the Government's 2006 sentencing memorandum reference to "nonsense theories."
There is no indication from the Bureau of Prisons that any of the antisocial characteristics documented in the Government's memorandum have abated or been addressed in the last 22 years. The court has been given no assessment of the Defendant's adjustment, no counselor's reports, and no disciplinary history for good or for ill. The statements in the Government's motion, terse and formulaic as they are, leave the court unsatisfied and unpersuaded.
In the judgment of the court, it continues to be "better for society for Mr. Walls to spend his remaining years in a secure environment in [a] federal institution." There exist no extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduction that would lessen the lifetime sentence originally imposed. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Government's "Motion to Reduce Term of Imprisonment to Time Served" [Dkt. #7222] is DENIED.
