UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MILLICENT TRAYLOR - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MILLICENT TRAYLOR

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Nov 1, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Erin S. Shaw, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Millicent Traylor, Fort Worth, Texas, pro se.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

Millicent Traylor, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court order denying her motion seeking a sentence reduction. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Accepting the serious nature of Traylor’s alleged medical conditions, her argument is foreclosed by our recent holding that “a defendant’s incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic—when the defendant has access to the COVID-19 vaccine—does not present an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ warranting a sentence reduction.” United States v. Lemons, --- F.4th ---, No. 21-5313, 2021 WL 4699249 (6th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021) (citing United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021)). The COVID-19 vaccine is available to inmates at Traylor’s facility, and Traylor has received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. See COVID-19 Coronavirus, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (Oct. 29, 2021, 3:00 PM) (listing the number of inmates and staff at each federal prison, including Traylor’s facility, who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 at that facility). Therefore, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Traylor’s circumstances are not extraordinary and compelling. And because the district court determined that there was no extraordinary and compelling reason to grant Traylor’s motion, it also did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without addressing whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Elias, 984 F.3d at 519. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

Attachments: