govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cr-00040-15

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
CONCETTA JACKSON 
CRIMINAL ACTION 
 
 
 
NO. 07-40-2 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 For a third time, Defendant Concetta Jackson, proceeding pro se, moves for 
compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). For the 
reasons set forth below, her Motion will be denied. 
 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
Jackson is currently serving a 300-month (25 year) sentence for aiding her then-
boyfriend, John Worman, in sexually abusing minor children in her home from 2003 to 2006. 
The specific details of the sexual exploitation are horrific and, as they are not relevant to this 
motion, will not be recounted. As for her role, Jackson allowed Worman to install a camera in 
her bathroom and to film her minor children, which he did for three years. She also advertised 
her babysitting services, took in infants to her home to babysit, and then tacitly allowed Worman 
to sexually abuse them and videotape the abuse. On September 2, 2008, Jackson pled guilty to 
aiding and abetting the use of a minor— here, a 10 -month-old child—to produce visual 
depictions of sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). On 
September 9, 2009, she was sentenced to 300 months’ incarceration, lifetime supervised release, 
a prohibition against having contact with any victim named in the indictment or their families, 
and other penalties. 

2 
 
Jackson is serving her sentence at FCI Danbury, with an anticipated release date of June 
28, 2031. Including time credit for good conduct, she has served a total of 218 months or 
approximately 73% of her sentence. Jackson has twice before filed motions for compassionate 
release to no avail. She now moves again, predicating her motion on her Chronic Obstructive 
Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”) diagnosis, a condition which sometimes makes it difficult for her 
to breathe. The Government opposes the motion. 
 DISCUSSION 
The compassionate release statute permits a court to modify an imposed term of 
imprisonment “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 
applicable,” only “if it finds that [] extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 
reduction,” and if “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). So “a motion for compassionate 
release raises three questions: (1) whether there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for 
modifying an imposed term of imprisonment; (2) whether a new sentence would be consistent 
with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and, (3) whether a new sentence would be 
consistent with any applicable policy statements.” United States v. Carter, 711 F. Supp.3d 428, 
434-35 (E.D. Pa. 2024) (citing United States v. Pawlowksi, 967 F.3d 327, 329 (3d Cir. 2020)), 
aff’d, 2024 WL 5339852 (3d Cir. Dec. 2, 2024). 
Here, as articulated in this Court’s prior opinion regarding one of Jackson’s earlier 
Motions for Compassionate Release: “the buck stops at step one as Jackson cannot demonstrate 
‘extraordinary and compelling’ circumstances warranting her release.” United States v. Jackson, 
2021 WL 1145903, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2021). Congress delegated to the Sentencing 
Commission the power to promulgate “general policy statements regarding the sentencing 

3 
 
modification provisions in” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which “shall describe what should be 
considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 
Generally, the Commission’s policy statements are binding on courts. Cf. United States v. 
Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360, 375 (3d Cir. 2024) (citing United States v. Berberena, 694 F.3d 514, 
522 (3d Cir. 2012)). 
Jackson cites one policy statement in her Motion, Section 1B1.13(b)(1). Specifically, she 
cites Section 1B1.13(b)(1)(B) and (C), which state that extraordinary and compelling reasons for 
a reduction in sentence exit when: 
(B) The defendant is-- 
(i) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition, 
(ii) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or 
(iii) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the 
aging process, 
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to 
provide self -care within the environment of a correctional 
facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover. 
(C) The defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires long-
term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without 
which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death. 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B)-(C). 
 In Jackson’s Motion, she contends that she has weekly COPD exacerbations, during 
which she cannot breathe and her chest becomes tight. She additionally contends that the 
medical professionals assigned to treat her COPD have refused to provide a different inhaler to 
her, which she purportedly needs because her current inhaler does not work. She finally 
maintains that the Physician Assistant (“PA”) treating her will not send her to a lung specialist 
for further treatment. 

4 
 
 Jackson’s contentions are belied by her medical records, which the Government has 
supplied. Based on those records, throughout May and June 2025, Jackson reported that her 
COPD flared a handful of times. In one instance, she was promptly treated by prison officials, 
but showed no improvement, and so was transferred to an outside emergency room, where she 
did improve. In another instance, she was proscribed an inhaler after reporting some difficulty 
breathing, which she reported provided her “some relief.” A few weeks later, she again 
complained, but notified the treating medical professionals that she had not been using her 
prescribed inhaler. Because of her age and previous failure to use her inhaler, the treating 
professional requested a “triple therapy” inhaler—a more advanced form of treatment —which 
the Bureau of Prisons approved. 
 After the new inhaler was prescribed in early June, Jackson’s episodes appear to have 
ceased. In mid-June, she again reported shortness of breath, but upon examination, the treating 
professional determined that she “present[ed] with no visible signs of respiratory distress.” And 
finally, ten days before she filed her Motion for Compassionate Release, during a routine check-
up, she reported that “her inhalants have been very beneficial.” In sum, her COPD is well-
controlled. 
To establish an “extraordinary and compelling” circumstance warranting release under 
Section 1B.13(b)(1), Jackson needed to establish that she was “suffering from a serious physical 
or medical condition . . . that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-
care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to 
recover,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B), or that she was “suffering from a medical condition that 
requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided,” U.S.S.G. 
§ 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). Well-controlled COPD (and as Jackson’s medical records reveal, hers is) 

5 
 
rarely meets that high bar. United States v. Russo, 2021 WL 5792696, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 
2021) (holding that, even in the face of COVID-19 ravaging the nation, prisoner was not entitled 
to relief despite his “asthma, anxiety disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, [and] COPD”); United 
States v. Limehouse, 2021 WL 1387756, at *5-7 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2021) (denying prisoner’s 
(who had COPD and asthma), motion for compassionate release, because the prisoner “is stable 
and . . . appears to have received appropriate medical care in a timely manner throughout his 
incarceration,” even though in the face of COVID-19 it made the decision “a close case”). And 
finally, given Jackson’s reports to medical staff that she has not been using her inhaler in each 
instance of her COPD flare-ups, such failure “negates” what might have otherwise been 
“compelling medical reasons for release.” See Jackson, 2021 WL 1145903, at *2 (noting the 
same regarding Jackson’s declination of the COVID-19 vaccine). 
An appropriate order follows. 
BY THE COURT: 
 S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE 
 ___________________________ 
WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J. 

Passage view · GavelSight