Virginia Lawyers Weekly//July 7, 2023
Virginia Lawyers Weekly//July 7, 2023//
Where a detainee argued he should be released early, but failed to show that his rhabdomyolysis had worsened or is being poorly managed, and his release would not promote respect for law or provide adequate deterrence, his motion was denied.
On May 24, 2019, Quayshawn M. Davidson pleaded guilty to multiple counts of a superseding indictment. This court sentenced petitioner to 24 months’ imprisonment for Counts One and Two to run concurrently, and 84 months’ imprisonment on Count Three to be served consecutively to Count One. Petitioner is currently incarcerated with a projected release date of Dec. 7, 2026. Before the court is petitioner’s second pro se motion for compassionate release.
A petitioner seeking compassionate release has two options after requesting that the Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, bring a motion on their behalf: (1) exhaust their administrative remedies or (2) wait 30 days from the date of their initial request to the BOP.
The court finds that petitioner satisfied the threshold requirement. The government does not contest such. On April 5, 2022, petitioner submitted a request for compassionate release to the FCI Berlin warden. On May 10, 2022, the warden denied petitioner’s request.
On Oct. 31, 2022, petitioner filed his second pro se motion for compassionate release. On Dec. 21, 2022, petitioner filed the motion through counsel. Thus, more than 30 days passed since petitioner filed his request.
In denying petitioner’s first compassionate release motion, the court found that “since Petitioner [had] been formally diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, he [had] received guidance to prevent triggering symptoms and medical treatment.” Petitioner does not allege that his condition has worsened or explain how his health conditions place him at high risk of serious complications from rhabdomyolysis.
According to medical records provided by the BOP, petitioner has not been hospitalized since March 2021. Petitioner has not made a showing that his condition has worsened or is being poorly managed. Accordingly, petitioner’s rhabdomyolysis does not provide an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.
Further, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors still do not weigh in favor of petitioner’s compassionate release. The seriousness of petitioner’s underlying offense remains unchanged. As part of the robbery, petitioner entered the store, pointed a firearm at two employees and a customer and stole approximately $4,880 from the grocery store.
To petitioner’s credit, he has taken advantage of the programs provided by the BOP. Further, petitioner has had no institutional infractions in the last six months. However, as noted by sister courts, a “defendant’s rehabilitation alone proves insufficient to warrant a sentence reduction.” Although petitioner has arranged to live with his grandmother in Virginia Beach, and argues that he will be safer in the community and articulates a release plan, the plan does not adequately protect the public or protect against recidivism.
Overall, the court finds that the § 3553(a) factors still do not weigh in petitioner’s favor and his release would not promote the respect for law or provide adequate deterrence. Critically, petitioner did not show extraordinary or compelling reasons for release.
Petitioner’s motion for compassionate release denied.
Davidson v. United States, Case No. 2:18-cr-177, June 14, 2023. EDVA at Norfolk (Jackson). VLW 023-3-341. 7 pp.