govinfo:USCOURTS-ohnd-1_20-cr-00561-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
JASON JARVIS, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 

 
OPINION & ORDER 
[Resolving Doc. 588] 
 
 
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: 
 
Defendant Jason Jarvis is cu rrently serving a sentence fo r conspiracy to possess and 
distribute methamphetamine.
1 Defendant Jarvis moves for compassionate release under 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). With the motion, Jarvis argues that his medical conditions justify a 
sentence reduction.2 
The Court appointed counsel to assist Jarvis with his motion. 3 Appointed counsel 
filed a supplement and reply on Jarvis’s behalf.4 The government filed an opposition.5 
Defendant Jarvis has not shown that his medical conditions are extraordinary and 
compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. And the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors do not 
favor early release either. So, the Court DENIES the compassionate release motion. 
I. BACKGROUND 
On September 24, 2020, a grand jury indicted Defendant Jarvis on 
methamphetamine-related charges.6 Jarvis obtained methamphetamine from California and 
 
1 Doc. 517; Doc. 514 at PageID #: 2902. 
2 Doc. 588. 
3 CJA 20 Appointment (Apr. 5, 2023). 
4 Docs. 608-2, 622-2. 
5 Doc. 618. 
6 Doc. 514 at ¶¶ 1–2. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00561-DAR Doc #: 624 Filed: 06/18/24 1 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

GWIN, J. 
 
- 2 - 
then passed that methamphetamine to his co-defendants for further distribution in Ohio.7 In 
total, Jarvis possessed at least 545 grams of methamphetamine throughout this drug 
conspiracy.8 
On October 14, 2021, Defendant Jarvis pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and 
distribute methamphetamine.9 The Court sentenced Jarvis to 120 months.10 
II. DISCUSSION 
Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court ma y reduce a defendant’s sentence if the 
defendant shows: (1) there are “extraordina ry and compelling” reasons for a sentence 
reduction; (2) a sentence reduction is c onsistent with the Sentencing Commission’s 
applicable policy statements; and (3) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support a reduction.11 
A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons 
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.13 is the applicable policy statement guiding 
compassionate release. This policy statem ent identifies circumstances that qualify as 
extraordinary and compelling.12 
As relevant here, Defendant Jarvis argues that he demonstrates extraordinary and 
compelling reasons under two of the policy statement’s medical circumstance provisions. 
First, Jarvis says that he is “suffering from a serious physical or medical condition . . . 
that substantially diminishes [his] ability . . . to provide self-care.”13 Jarvis says that he suffers 
 
7 Doc. 514 at ¶¶ 6–7. 
8 Id. at ¶ 45. 
9 Minutes of Change of Plea (Oct. 14, 2021). 
10 Doc. 517. 
11 United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1004–05 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 
12 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b). 
13 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B)(i). 
Case: 1:20-cr-00561-DAR Doc #: 624 Filed: 06/18/24 2 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

GWIN, J. 
 
- 3 - 
from heart disease and that he cannot “admin ister self-care to address his heart condition” 
while incarcerated.14 
But being able to treat one’s own medical conditions is different from providing self-
care. Usually, individuals will not be able to treat their own medical conditions. Those 
individuals will need to seek a doctor who can diagnose them and then provide medication 
or perform other medical procedures. If being unable to self-treat a medical condition were 
extraordinary and compelling, then most illn esses more severe than a cold would be 
extraordinary and compelling. That runs count er to what “extraordinary and compelling” 
means. 
Self-care refers to something more basi c—the ability to independently carry out 
standard daily living tasks such as dressing, eating, or taking prescribed medication.15 
Although Defendant Jarvis’s heart disease may limit the activity types he can perform 
or the food he can eat, nothing in the reco rd suggests that Jarvis cannot independently 
perform daily living tasks. So, Jarvis has not shown a diminished ability to provide self-care. 
Second, Jarvis says that even if he does not qualify under the policy statement’s self-
care provision, Jarvis still qualifies for a se ntence reduction because his heart conditions 
“require[] long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which 
[Jarvis] is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.”16 
 
14 Doc. 608-2 at 14. 
15 See United States v. Moore, No. 3:17-CR-86-KAC-DCP-3, 2023 WL 502989 2, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 7, 2023) (holding 
that an inmate who was “functionally independent” could provide self-care); United States v. Simpson, No. CR 6:04-063-
DCR, 2024 WL 871320, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 29, 2024) (medical conditions that “impact [] conditions of daily living” but 
do not prevent an inmate from “independently providing self-care” are not extraordinary and compelling). 
16 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). 
Case: 1:20-cr-00561-DAR Doc #: 624 Filed: 06/18/24 3 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

GWIN, J. 
 
- 4 - 
Jarvis primarily argues that he received poor medical care while incarcerated at FCI 
Gilmer.17 However, Jarvis is no longer at FCI Gilmer. On December 5, 2023, The Bureau 
of Prisons transferred Jarvis to FCI Thomson.18 
Jarvis says that his medical treatment at FCI Thomson was also spotty. But Jarvis points 
to only two alleged lapses, and neither rises to the extraordinary and compelling level. 
For the first lapse, Jarvis sa ys that FCI Gilmer officials promised to schedule him a 
November 2023 cardiologist appointment. 19 Yet, Jarvis did not see a cardiologist before 
transferring to FCI Thomson, and FCI Thoms on apparently has no record of such an 
appointment.20 
The Bureau of Prisons appears to be at fault for losing tr ack of Jarvis’s appointment 
during the transfer from FCI Gilmer to FCI T homson. But while it is disappointing for the 
Bureau to make this mistake, a one-time delay in scheduling a cardiologist appointment after 
a transfer is not extraordinary and compelling. FCI Thomson still can (and should) schedule 
a cardiologist appointment for Jarvis to provide care. 
For the second lapse, Jarvis says that he went without some of his heart medication 
for five days because FCI Thomson staff was slow to fill Jarvis’s prescription.21 Again, while 
this situation is unfortunate, one medicati on delay incident is not extraordinary and 
compelling. 
 
17 Doc. 608-2 at 8–12. 
18 Id. at 12. 
19 Doc. 608-8 at PageID #: 3937. 
20 Id. 
21 Id. at PageID #: 3938–39. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00561-DAR Doc #: 624 Filed: 06/18/24 4 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

GWIN, J. 
 
- 5 - 
More broadly, Jarvis appears to suggest th at no prison at all could provide adequate 
care for his heart disease because prisons are not equi pped to perform pr ocedures such as 
placing a stent.22 
However, there is no medical record evide nce showing that Jarvis needs surgical 
procedures to treat his heart disease. In December 2022, an outside cardiologist examined 
Jarvis and recommended managing Jarv is’s heart disease with medication. 23 And in 
December 2023, FCI Thomson medical staff evalua ting Jarvis reported that Jarvis’s heart 
disease was “well-controlled on current meds.”24 
Medication management is available at FCI Thomson, so Defendant Jarvis can receive 
his necessary care. 
The Court notes that even if Jarvis needed a stent or other surgical procedure, 
compassionate release still would not be appropriate. Even if a prison does not have facilities 
to perform surgeries onsite, the Bureau of Prisons can transfer an inmate to outside hospitals 
for procedures. 
Therefore, Defendant Jarvis has not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for 
compassionate release. 
B. Sentencing Factors 
The § 3553(a) sentencing factors also do not support compassionate release. Jarvis 
trafficked at least 545 grams of methamphetamine—a significant amount.25 The Court judged 
 
22 Doc. 622-2 at 2. 
23 Doc. 609-2 at PageID #: 3979–80. 
24 Doc. 619 at PageID #: 4050. 
25 Doc. 514 at ¶ 45. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00561-DAR Doc #: 624 Filed: 06/18/24 5 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

GWIN, J. 
 
- 6 - 
that a 120-month sentence was necessary to refle ct this offense’s seri ousness, deter future 
crime, and to avoid sentencing disparities.26 
The government took Defe ndant Jarvis into custody on September 28, 2020. 27 
Accounting for time served prior to Jarvis’s sentencing, Jarvis has served less than four years 
of his sentence. To release Jarv is before he has served even half of his sentence would not 
reflect the magnitude of Jarv is’s methamphetamine traffick ing and would give Jarvis a 
significantly lower sentence than similar defendants would receive. 
So, the § 3553(a) factors do not weigh in favor of compassionate release either. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the compassionate release motion. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 18, 2024 
s/ James S. Gwin 
JAMES S. GWIN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
26 Doc. 518 at PageID #: 2940. 
27 Doc. 514 at PageID #: 2902. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00561-DAR Doc #: 624 Filed: 06/18/24 6 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight