UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LISA M. ELIAS - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LISA M. ELIAS

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jan 6, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Matthew Ahn, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Vanessa V. Healy, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Matthew Ahn, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Vanessa V. Healy, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. The passage of the First Step Act in 2018 expanded access to compassionate release by allowing inmates to bring compassionate-release motions on their own behalf. Prior to that Act, only the Bureau of Prisons could bring compassionate-release motions. However, the removal of the Bureau of Prisons as the sole gatekeeper to compassionate release raised questions of whether the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, remained applicable to inmate-filed motions. This Court spoke on those questions recently, stating that § 1B1.13 is not applicable to inmate-filed compassionate- release motions. United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020). We follow that reasoning here.

In 2016, Lisa Elias was convicted of a drug-related conspiracy. This year, she utilized the expanded compassionate release process by moving for compassionate release on her own behalf, arguing that her hypertension placed her at an elevated risk of death if she were to contract COVID-19. The district court denied her motion, finding that Elias failed to show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction as the statute requires. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Elias claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion. We find her arguments to be without merit and AFFIRM.

Attachments: