UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Criminal No. 18-cr-111-1 (DLF)
JAMES ANTHONY SPEAKS, JR.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
James A. Speaks, Jr., is serving a five-year sentence at Federal Correctional Institution
Schuylkill (“FCI Schuylkill”) after pleading guilty to Using, Carrying and Possessing a Firearm
During a Drug Trafficking Offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Before the Court is
the defendant’s pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based
on the threat posed to him by COVID-19 and based on his family circumstances. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will deny the defendant’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2014, the FBI’s Safe Streets Task Force began investigating large-scale drug
trafficking operations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. See Statement of Offense at 2,
Dkt. 91. Through this investigation, the FBI identified Speaks as a large-scale supplier and
distributor of large quantities of cocaine base and heroin in the District of Columbia and
Maryland. Id.
On April 24, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Speaks.
See Dkt. 1. On January 22, 2019, Speaks pleaded guilty to Count Three of the Indictment, which
charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See Plea Agreement, Dkt. 92. As part of his
plea, Speaks admitted that he distributed cocaine base and heroin and that a semi-automatic
handgun recovered in a search warrant of his home in Maryland was used in furtherance of his
drug distribution scheme. See Statement of Offense at 3. On April 12, 2019, this Court
sentenced Speaks to a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i),
and 60 months of supervised release, see Judgment at 2–3, Dkt. 138.
Speaks is currently serving his sentence at FCI Schulykill. On September 1, 2020,
Speaks submitted a request for a sentence reduction to FCI Schuylkill’s warden, see Def.’s Mot.
for Compassionate Release (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 1, Dkt. 174, who denied the request on October 5,
2020, see Gov’t’s Ex. 2, Dkt. 177-3. Speaks then filed this pro se motion for compassionate
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), see Def.’s Mot., which the government opposes,
see Gov’t’s Opp’n, Dkt. 177.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, federal courts “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). “Section 3582(c)(1)(A) of Title 18 provides one exception to
this general rule[,]” as it “authorizes federal courts to entertain a motion for a sentence reduction
brought by the Director of the BOP or by the defendant,” provided that certain conditions are
met. United States v. Greene, No. 71-cr-1913, 2021 WL 354446, at *6 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2021).
If the defendant is the movant, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This requires establishing that he “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
that 30 days have passed “from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s
facility, whichever is earlier.” Id.
A defendant also “has the burden of establishing that he is eligible for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).” United States v. Holroyd, 464 F. Supp. 3d 14, 17 (D.D.C.
2
2020). Under that provision, the Court may grant a defendant’s motion for compassionate
release only if “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)],” the Court finds
that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
The D.C. Circuit recently held that policy statement U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which refers to
compassionate release motions filed by the BOP Director, does not apply to motions filed by
defendants. United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342, 355 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Consequently, a
defendant who files his own motion for compassionate release “must show that he has exhausted
his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons and that there are ‘extraordinary and
compelling reasons’ warranting relief.” United States v. Oliver, No. 00-cr-157-21, 2021 WL
2913627, at *4 (D.D.C. July 12, 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). If he makes such
a showing, the Court “may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the relevant
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Winston, No. 94-cr-296-11, 2021 WL
2592959, at *3 (D.D.C. June 24, 2021).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Exhaustion
As the government concedes, Speaks has satisfied § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion
requirement. See Gov’t’s Opp’n at 9 n.2. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a defendant to seek a
sentence reduction after he 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
3
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Speaks complied with this requirement by filing his
motion more than 30 days after his request to FCI Schuylkill’s warden.
B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
Turning to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)’s requirement of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,”
Speaks offers two potential justifications for his release. First, he contends that he suffers from
medical conditions—diminished lung capacity and hypertension—which will increase his risk of
death or serious illness if he were to contract COVID-19. Def.’s Mot. at 2–3. Second, Speaks
points to his family circumstances, and more specifically, his desire to care for his domestic
partner and minor child, who are both severely asthmatic. Id. at 7–9. As explained below,
neither constitutes an extraordinary or compelling reason for his release under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
1. Threat of COVID-19
Speaks claims that he will be “especially vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 should
he become infected” because he suffers from hypertension as well as diminished lung capacity.
Id. at 2. In fact, Speaks asserts that he has only “one functional lung.” Id. These assertions,
however, are belied by Speaks’s medical records.1 While Speaks was treated for hypertension
from 2011 to 2012, see 2020 BOP Medical Records at 18, he stopped taking hypertension
medication more than eight years ago, id., and has repeatedly denied having hypertension while
in BOP’s custody, see 2019 BOP Medical Records at 14, 21, 48. Thus, Speaks “has not carried
his burden of demonstrating that his hypertension is an extraordinary and compelling reason for
1
While Speaks did not attach any medical records to his motion, the government obtained
Speaks’s medical records from BOP and has submitted them to the Court. See Gov’t’s Ex. 3
(“2020 BOP Medical Records”), Dkt. 176-4; Gov’t’s Ex. 4 (“2019 BOP Medical Records”), Dkt.
176-5.
4
release.” See United States v. Orji, 486 F. Supp. 3d 398, 402 (D.D.C. 2020); see also United
States v. Douglas, No. 10-cr-171-4, 2021 WL 214563, at *6 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2021) (collecting
cases where courts have denied compassionate release “to individuals with controlled or benign
hypertension”).
As to Speaks’s claim of diminished lung capacity, Speaks did undergo “several medical
procedures” after a 2006 shooting, and has “metal wires in his chest” as a result. Presentence
Report (“PSR”) at 18, Dkt. 120. However, he has submitted no evidence to support his claim
that he has “one functional lung.”2 Def.’s Mot. at 2. His medical records from BOP indicate that
he has consistently denied having any respiratory problems, see, e.g., 2020 BOP Medical
Records at 18, 23, 48, and that he regularly plays basketball and engages in other forms of
exercise, see, e.g., id. at 13. Speaks therefore has not demonstrated that his alleged respiratory
problems are sufficiently severe to constitute an extraordinary and compelling justification for
his release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Franklin, 07-cr-178, 2020 WL
4049917, at *2 (D.D.C. July 20, 2020) (denying compassionate release in light of the “absence of
documentation” regarding the severity of the defendant’s medical conditions); see also, e.g.,
United States v. Coles, 455 F. Supp. 3d 419, 425 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (denying compassionate
release to a defendant who claimed to have asthma but whose BOP medical records “contain[ed]
at least four occasions where [the defendant] denie[d] having respiratory problems”).
2
Speaks’s medical records repeatedly indicate that his sternotomy incision is “well healed,”
2020 BOP Medical Records at 10, 12, 28, though the parties dispute whether this means that
Speaks’s lungs are also “well-healed,” compare Gov’t’s Opp’n at 10 (contending Speaks’s
medical records describe his lungs as “well-healed” (citing 2020 BOP Medical Records at 28)),
with Def.’s Reply at 9 (disputing this account). Regardless, as noted, Speaks has not pointed to
any evidence that documents the severity of his alleged respiratory problems or that substantiates
his claim of diminished lung capacity.
5
Insofar as Speaks contends that COVID-19 itself constitutes an extraordinary and
compelling circumstance that justifies his release, see, e.g., Def.’s Reply at 2, “the ‘mere
existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison
alone cannot independently justify compassionate release,’” United States v. Dempsey, No. 19-
cr-368, 2021 WL 2073350, at *3 (D.D.C. May 24, 2021) (quoting United States v. Raia, 954
F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020)). Moreover, the number of BOP inmates who are infected with the
virus has dropped significantly since the height of the pandemic. When Speaks filed his motion,
FCI Schuylkill had reported “just one inmate case of COVID-19 and two staff cases.” Gov’t’s
Opp’n at 6. And the facility does not currently have a single inmate or staff member infected
with the virus. See COVID-19 Cases, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (listing no positive cases at FCI Schuylkill as of July 23,
2021); see also United States v. Webb, No. 09-cr-755, 2021 WL 2810069, at *6 (E.D. Pa. July 6,
2021) (“COVID-19 is no longer present to a significant degree at FCI Schuylkill.”).
2. Family Circumstances
Alternatively, Speaks contends that family circumstances warrant his release because his
domestic partner, Ebony Tidline, and their daughter suffer from “severe chronic asthma,” and his
release is therefore necessary in order for him to “become the caregiver” for them both. Def.’s
Mot. at 7. Speaks has also submitted a letter from Tidline in which she indicates that she has
“suffered from chronic asthma for over 10 years,” has recently “had multiple exacerbations”
which have led to her hospitalization “on several occasions,” and has “struggl[ed] to find child
care on these occasions.” Tidline Letter at 1, Dkt. 174. While the Court is sympathetic to these
challenges, they do not establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances that justify
Speaks’s release.
6
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which is not binding here, see Long, 997 F.3d at 355, nonetheless
guides the Court “in the exercise of its discretion,” and “that policy statement suggests that
family circumstances should warrant release only in extreme circumstances,” United States v.
Piles, 19-cr-292-5, 2021 WL 1198019, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2021) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Application note 1(c) to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 indicates that the death or
incapacitation of a defendant’s domestic partner who is the primary caretaker of the defendant's
minor children is one such circumstance, but only where “the defendant would be the only
available caregiver.” See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(C).
Although Speaks asserts that Tidline is “incapacitated” by her asthma, Def.’s Mot. at 10
(citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13), Speaks has not provided any medical records demonstrating her
incapacity. See generally Def.’s Mot.; see also United States v. Garcia, No. 09-cr-224-01, 2021
WL 719763, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2021) (rejecting a similar incapacitation argument where
the defendant did not provide an explanation of the primary caregiver’s condition or medical
records demonstrating incapacity). Nor does the record before the Court reflect that Tidline is
incapable of caring for herself or their child, or that Tidline has no other caregivers. See
generally Tidline Letter; see also Gov’t’s Ex. 2 at 2 (“[A]ccording to [Speaks’s] PSI, [his]
mother has moved to Washington DC, in order to help care for [his] children since [his]
incarceration.”). Speaks has thus failed to substantiate his claim that his family circumstances
qualify as extraordinary and compelling under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
C. Section 3553(a) Factors
Finally, “even if [Speaks] had presented ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for
release, the Court may reduce his term of imprisonment only if the balance of the § 3553(a)
factors favor his release.” United States v. Edwards, No. 03-cr-234, 2020 WL 5518322, at *4
7
(D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2020); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“[T]he court . . . may reduce the
term of imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
that they are applicable”). Weighing all of the § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and
circumstances of Speaks’s offense and his history and characteristics, release is not warranted.
When Speaks entered his plea, he admitted to supplying “large quantities” of cocaine
base and heroin to co-conspirators in the Washington, D.C. area and carrying a firearm to further
his drug trafficking operation. Statement of Offense at 2–3. And even before his conviction in
this case, Speaks had a long history of drug dealing and violence. See PSR at 7–17. Just last
year, Speaks was cited for possession of narcotics while in BOP’s custody. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 13
(citing Gov’t’s Ex. 5 (“Inmate Discipline Data”), Dkt. 177-6). Speaks’s programming efforts at
FCI Schuylkill, see Def.’s Mot. at 11, 14, and his professional and life goals, see id. at 10–12, are
commendable, but his overall record “reinforce[s] the Court’s concern[s] that [Speaks] has a
tendency to get involved with drugs, dangerous weapons, or both,” Dempsey, 2021 WL 2073350,
at *5, and that he continues to pose a substantial threat to public safety. Serving “[a]nything less
than a [60-month] sentence—which, after all, is the product of a mandatory minimum—would
not reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment,
or afford adequate deterrence.” Holroyd, 464 F. Supp. 3d at 21 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release, Dkt. 174, is
DENIED.
8
________________________
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
July 23, 2021 United States District Judge
9
United States v. Speaks
Combined Opinion