govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-5_08-cr-00031-0

Page 1 of 6  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
ISAIAH LAMAR ROBINSON, 
 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
Criminal Case No. 
5:08-cr-31-JMH 
 
 
MEMORANDUM 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
*** 
 
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Isaiah Robinson’s 
Motion for Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(1)(A). (DE 215). On February 7, 2008, Robinson was indicted 
on a six-count indictment, with three counts of committing Hobbs 
Act robbery (Counts 1, 3 and 5) and use, carry and discharge of a 
firearm during and relation to a crime of violence (Counts 2, 4, 
and 6). (DE 11). He pleaded guilty and was sentenced, on September 
23, 2008, to a total term of 828 months of imprisonment. (DE 145). 
Robinson is currently serving his sentence at USP McCreary in Pine 
Knot, Kentucky, and is projected to be released on June 28, 2067. 
(DE 217-1). He now moves the Court to modify his sentence under 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (DE 215). For the reasons set forth below, 
his motion is denied. 
Prior to the First Step Act, PL 115-391, 132 Stat 5194 (Dec. 
21, 2018), the Court could not grant a motion for compassionate 
release unless the director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) filed 
Case: 5:08-cr-00031-DCR     Doc #: 222     Filed: 08/05/21     Page: 1 of 6 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
Page 2 of 6  
the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2017). The First Step 
Act amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow the court to grant a motion 
for compassionate release filed by the defendant himself “after 
the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to 
appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the 
defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of 
such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever 
is earlier . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); PL 115-391, 132 
Stat 5194 § 603 (Dec. 21, 2018). The Sixth Circuit has determined 
that the occurrence of one of the two events mentioned in the 
statute is a “mandatory condition” to the Court granting 
compassionate release. United States v. Alam , 960 F.3d 831, 833 
(6th Cir. 2 020). If the government “properly invoke[s]” the 
condition, the Court must enforce it. Id. at 834. In this case, 
the United States has not acknowledged whether or not Robinson has 
appropriately exhausted his administrative remedies, but has 
attached the defendant’s previous requests to the warden. (See DE 
217-2, 217-3). Therefore, the Court will find that it has the 
authority to consider Robinson‘s motion. 
The compassionate release statute permits this Court to 
“reduce the term of imprisonment” and “impose a term of probation 
or supervised release with or without conditions that does not 
exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment.” 
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Under the applicable provision of 
Case: 5:08-cr-00031-DCR     Doc #: 222     Filed: 08/05/21     Page: 2 of 6 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
Page 3 of 6  
Section 3582(c)(1)(A), however, the Court may grant this relief 
only if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant 
such a reduction,” and the “reduction is consistent with applicable 
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 
 
The statute does not define what it means to be “extraordinary 
and compelling.” The commentary to the policy statement by the 
Sentencing Commission applicable to Section 3582(c)(1)(A) provides 
some guidance; however, the Sixth Circuit has determined that the 
policy statement applies only to motions filed by the BOP and does 
not apply when a defendant moves for compassionate release on his 
own behalf. United States v. Jones , 980 F.3d 1098, 1108 -11 (6th 
Cir. 2020). In such cases, district courts are no longer 
constrained by the reasons enumerated in §1B1.13’s application 
note. See id.; United States v. Elias , 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 
2021); see also United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th 
Cir. 2020). Thus, courts need not rely on the application note as 
binding in its analysis; instead, a court may exercise its “full 
discretion” to determine whether the defendant has demonstrated 
extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release, 
Jones, 980 F.3d at 1111, and, if s o, whether the section 3553(a) 
factors weigh in favor of release. 
As grounds for his motion, Robinson admits that: he has not 
been diagnosed with a terminal illness; he does not suffer from 
Case: 5:08-cr-00031-DCR     Doc #: 222     Filed: 08/05/21     Page: 3 of 6 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
Page 4 of 6  
any serious physical or medical conditions; he is no t 65 years- 
old or older; he has no existing issues with a caregiver of a minor 
child or his children; nor does he have an incapacitated spouse or 
registered partner.1 Instead, he asserts that he is entitled to 
relief based on a retroactive application of Section 403 of the 
First Step Act of 2018, which reduced the penalty for multiple 
section 924(c) violations committed by an offender who had not 
previously incurred such a conviction. ( See DE 215 at 4 -5). 
Unfortunately, however, this argumen t does not afford Robinson 
relief because the determination of the retroactivity of a 
statutory provision is made by Congress ( see Dorsey v. United 
States, 567 U.S. 260, 274 (2012)), and the Sixth Circuit has 
already concluded that any recent amendments made to section 924(c) 
does not apply to cases like Robinson’s, where he was sentenced 
well before December 21, 2018. See United States v. Richardson , 
948 F.3d 733, 745-53 (6th Cir. 2020). 
Nevertheless, the Court must still consider whether “the 
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 
applicable” support the requested sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(1)(A); Jones, 980 F.3d at 1107 -1108. These factors 
include: 
 
 
1 The Court has reviewed the documents accompanied to the Government’s response 
— specifically, Robinson’s medical records (see DE 219-3, 219-4, & 219-5) — and 
concludes that there are also no other “extraordinary and compelling reasons” 
which support his release. 
Case: 5:08-cr-00031-DCR     Doc #: 222     Filed: 08/05/21     Page: 4 of 6 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
Page 5 of 6  
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 
history and characteristics of the defendant; 
 
(2) the need for the sentence imposed-- 
A. to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to 
promote respect for the law, and to provide just 
punishment for the offense; 
B. to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 
conduct; 
C. to protect the public from further crimes of 
the defendant; and 
D. to provide the defendant with needed educational 
or vocational training, medical care, or other 
correctional treatment in the most effective 
manner; [and] 
(3) the kinds of sentences available; 
18 U.SC. § 3553(a)(1)-(3). 
The § 3553(a) factors also include, the “kinds of sentence 
and the sentencing range” established in the guidelines; “any 
pertinent policy statement” issued by the Sentencing Commission; 
“the need to a void unwarranted sentence disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 
similar conduct”; and “the need to provide restitution to any 
victims of the offense. § 3553(a)(4)-(7). 
The Court considered these factors extensively at Robinson’s 
sentencing hearing ( see DE 148) and has reconsidered them for 
purposes of this motion. Robinson was involved in a series of 
violent robberies, wherein he seriously injured his victims by 
randomly discharging firearms. (DE 149 ¶¶ 20-35). He was also found 
to have held a leadership role in each robbery. Thus, based upon 
the record before it, the Court cannot find that Robinson would 
Case: 5:08-cr-00031-DCR     Doc #: 222     Filed: 08/05/21     Page: 5 of 6 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
Page 6 of 6  
not pose a danger to the safety of the community if he were to be 
released. 
Further, even though Robinson contends that he has been taking 
steps towards rehabilitation, his disciplinary record tells a 
different tale. Robinson has been involved in three disciplinary 
actions and two incidents involving narcotics or alcohol. (See DE 
219). This record is exemplary of Robinson’s inability to conform 
to the prison’s rules and regulations. Robinson must begin to focus 
on his journey towards rehabilitation in order to ensure that he 
will lead a quality life upon his release. Accordingly, in 
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the need for Robinson’s 
prison term to deter future criminal conduct, promote respect for 
the law, and provide just punishment, release is simply not 
appropriate. 
Robinson has not demonstrated that ex traordinary and 
compelling reasons exist for his early release or that the 
sentencing factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a 
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Robinson’s motion for compassionate 
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) [DE 215] is DENIED. 
This the 5th day of August, 2021 
 
Case: 5:08-cr-00031-DCR     Doc #: 222     Filed: 08/05/21     Page: 6 of 6 - Page ID#:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight