Order Denying Motion for Compassionate Release, U.S. v. Jonathan E Henley, No. 20-cr-0196, Dkt. 202 (E.D. Wis.)
Summary
An Order Denying Motion for Compassionate Release in United States of America v. Jonathan E Henley, Case No. 20-cr-0196-bhl-5, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, filed August 16, 2022 as Document 202. It recounts that Henley pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in a scheme to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, and at the September 23, 2021 sentencing received six months of incarceration and two years of supervised release. After repeated extensions of the report date, Henley sought home confinement under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing heart conditions. The court finds Henley ineligible for failing to exhaust with the BOP and, in any event, the reasons not extraordinary and compelling, noting a fraudulent application requesting $212,500. It is signed s/ Brett H. Ludwig, United States District Judge.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Order Denying Motion for Compassionate Release, U.S. v. Jonathan E Henley, No. 20-cr-0196, Dkt. 202 (E.D. Wis.).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-denying-motion-for-compassionate-release-u-s-v-jonathan-e-henley-3c731da358/
, SHA-256 b45a501c41bf09176e9ddc58a7be240bc9c90a7e7380c282ea4879d6882eb48b.Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-cr-0196-bhl-5
v.
JONATHAN E HENLEY,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The Government indicted Defendant Jonathan E. Henley nearly two years ago, charging
him and four co-defendants with participating in a scheme to submit fraudulent applications for
loans under the federal Paycheck Protection Program. (ECF No. 1.) Henley cooperated with the
Government, and, less than three months after the indictment, the Court accepted his guilty plea
to one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1344. (ECF No. 50.) Through no fault of his own,
Henley’s sentencing was delayed for another eight months. (ECF No. 165.) At the September
23, 2021 sentencing hearing, the Court exercised substantial leniency and, even though the
Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of 21 to 27 months incarceration plus two to five years
of supervised release, ordered Henley incarcerated for only six months to be followed by two years
of supervised release. (ECF No. 167.) The Court also waived any fine (although the Guidelines
recommended one for at least $10,000). (Id.) Henley was ordered to surrender to the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) as notified by Pretrial Services. (Id.)
Almost a year has passed since sentencing, but Henley has yet to serve any portion of his
sentence. On October 28, 2021, Henley filed the first of seven motions to extend his report date.
(ECF No. 172.) This first request was premised on his need to train an employee to handle his
business while he was in custody. (Id.) The Government did not oppose the brief extension, and
the Court granted it the next day. (ECF No. 173). A few weeks later, Henley requested a second
unopposed extension, this time seeking an additional month to allow him to attend medical
Case 2:20-cr-00196-BHL Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 6 Document 202
appointments to address a recent hypertension diagnosis. (ECF No. 174.) This request was also
granted. (ECF No. 175.) These two short extensions spawned a series of four more requests, all
allegedly necessary to allow Henley to complete medical appointments related to his hypertension
and issues concerning his heart. (ECF Nos. 182, 185, 189, & 191.) Given the lack of opposition
from the Government and the Court’s desire to allow Henley to get his medical affairs in order,
the Court acceded to these requests as well. (ECF Nos. 183, 186, 190, 197.) But, prior to granting
the final request, the Court addressed counsel at a telephonic hearing and cautioned that the delays
needed to come to an end and Henley needed to complete his sentence. (ECF Nos. 196, 197.) The
Court emphasized that any further extension would risk undermining the very purposes of
Henley’s criminal sentencing. (Id.) Nevertheless, to allow Henley to complete scheduled medical
appointments, the Court granted him one final extension of his report date, until August 19, 2022.
(Id.)
On August 9, 2022, ten days before he was finally to report to the BOP, Henley filed a
sealed motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 199.) Citing medical records, Henley argues
that his medical needs, including treatment for ongoing heart conditions, necessitate a change to
his sentence and urges the Court to use its “compassionate release” power under 18 U.S.C.
§3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to allow him to serve six months on home confinement rather than in prison.
(Id.) On August 11, 2022, the Government filed a written opposition to Henley’s request. (ECF
No. 201.) The Government noted that it does not oppose referring him to a BOP medical facility
to serve his sentence. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
Under Section 3582(c)(1) and Fed. R. Crim P. 35, a court has power to modify a criminal
sentence after it is pronounced in three ways. First, the Court can correct a sentence imposed based
on an arithmetic or technical error, but only within 14 days of pronouncing the sentence. Fed. R.
Crim P. 35(a). Second, if certain conditions are met, the Court can reduce a defendant’s sentence
based on substantial assistance to the Government. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). Third, in extraordinary
and compelling situations, the Court can reduce a defendant’s sentence under the “compassionate
release” provisions of 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Henley invokes only this third exception.
(ECF No. 199.)
The Court’s consideration of a compassionate release motion is a multi-step process. First,
the Court must determine whether the defendant is eligible under the statute. To be eligible, a
Case 2:20-cr-00196-BHL Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 6 Document 202
defendant is required to show that he or she made a request for release to the prison warden and
has either (a) exhausted all administrative appeals or (b) waited 30 days from the warden’s receipt
of the request, whichever is earlier. See United States v. Sanford, 986 F.3d 779, 781-82 (7th Cir.
2021). Second, if this “exhaustion” requirement is satisfied, the Court must then determine
whether there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction,
consistent with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). See United States v. Gunn,
980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). Henley’s request fails on both prongs of the analysis.
As an initial matter, Henley’s compassionate release motion fails because he is not eligible
for release under the statute. Henley has not attempted, let alone completed, any administrative
appeal within the BOP. Indeed, having successfully avoided reporting to the BOP for nearly a
year, there is no warden or other BOP personnel from whom Henley can, at this time, request
compassionate release. Henley tries to turn this liability into an asset, insisting it should excuse
him from exhaustion altogether. He contends that his failure to surrender renders exhaustion
“impossible” and thus the Court should rule he need not satisfy the statute’s exhaustion
requirement. (ECF. No. 199 at 5.) He cites to a trio of district court decisions, United States v.
Scott, 461 F. Supp. 3d 851, 857-59 (E.D. Wis. 2020); United States v. Johnson, No. 17-cr-162,
2020 WL 2770266 at *2 n.1 (E.D. Wis. May 28, 2020); and United States v. Turner, No. 18-cr-
142, 2020 WL 5717096 at *4 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 24, 2020), in which the Court concluded that a
defendant’s failure to exhaust under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i) was not jurisdictional and could be excused
based on judicially created equitable exceptions. All three of these decisions precede the Seventh
Circuit’s Sanford decision, which held that while the exhaustion requirement was not
jurisdictional, it was a mandatory claim processing rule that must be enforced when properly
invoked. 986 F.3d at 782. Here, the Government “respectfully opposes” Henley’s motion based
on Henley’s acknowledgement that he “has never served any of the sentence” that was imposed.
(ECF No. 201). While not burdened by great detail or precision, this statement is a sufficient
objection to Henley’s eligibility that the Court, under Sanford, must reject Henley’s motion given
his failure to exhaust with the BOP.
Indeed, there is good reason to require exhaustion in cases like this. While Henley lists a
series of medical issues that he believes won’t be adequately addressed if he is incarcerated, he
has not given the BOP any chance to weigh in on its capacity to treat him. He instead asks the
Court to assume the BOP would fail to treat him appropriately based on journal articles critical of
Case 2:20-cr-00196-BHL Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 6 Document 202
medical care in the prison system. (See ECF No. 199 at 8-11) (citing Emily A. Wang et al,
Cardiovascular Disease in Incarcerated Populations, J. AM. COLL. CARDIOLOGY (2019); Alan
Greenblatt, America Has a Health-Care Crisis – in Prisons, GOVERNING (July 29, 2019),
https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-prison-health-
care.html#:~:text=Prison%20is%20no%20place%20to; Emily H. Thomas et al, Patients’
Experiences Managing Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Factors in Prison, HEALTH JUST. (2016);
Andrew P. Wilper et al, The Health and Health Care of US Prisoners: Results of a Nationwide
Survey, AM. J. PUB. HEALTH (2009); Shortage of Correctional Staff in Federal Prisons is
Dangerous, INTERROGATING JUST. (Nov. 15, 2021), https://interrogatingjustice.org/latest-
news/interrogating-justice/shortage-of-correctional-staff-in-federal-prisons-is-dangerous/;
Camila DeChalus, Federal Prison Working Conditions are Getting Worse Despite Biden’s
Promise to Improve Conditions, Staffers Say, BUS. INSIDER (Mar. 18, 2022),
https://www.businessinsider.com/prison-workers-joe-biden-pandemic-covid-worse-doj-2022-3;
Walter Pavlo, Bureau of Prisons is Overworking its Most Critical Staff Positions During First Step
Act Implementation, FORBES (Mar. 31, 2022),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2022/03/31/bureau-of-prisons-is-overworking-its-
most-critical-staff-positions-during-first-step-act-implementation/?sh=6bef315259e5; Sojourner
Ahebee, 40% of Incarcerated People Have Chronic Conditions—How Good is the Healthcare
They Get Behind Bars?, PHILA. INQUIRER (Apr. 9, 2021),
https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/40-of-incarcerated-people-have-chronic-conditions-
how-good-is-the-healthcare-they-get-behind/article_11f37765-a308-52f0-88db-
4439ea29830a.html).) But the BOP is plainly in the best position to determine whether Henley’s
medical conditions are beyond the federal prison system’s capacities. Without first raising these
issues with the BOP, Henley invites to Court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency,
ignoring that the BOP is responsible for making those decisions in the first instance. As the
Government notes in its opposition, Henley may very well be able to serve his short sentence in a
BOP medical facility. The Court cannot presume that the BOP’s medical care is not up to Henley’s
needs.
Moreover, and in any event, even if the Court had the ability to dispense with exhaustion,
it would not grant Henley’s motion because he has not convinced the Court that his situation
warrants compassionate release. Henley’s extraordinary and compelling reasons are based on
Case 2:20-cr-00196-BHL Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 6 Document 202
medical conditions that, while not minor, are hardly rare. According to the NIH and Cleveland
Clinic, Henley’s most serious medical condition, left ventricular hypertrophy, is present in 15-20%
of the general population. Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, CLEVELAND CLINIC (Sept. 20, 2021),
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21883-left-ventricular-hypertrophy. While
Henley’s primary care doctor might prefer that Henley be allowed to serve a term of home
confinement in lieu of being incarcerated, (ECF No. 199 at 2), that decision is not his to make.
Had Henley not committed criminal fraud by making false statements in an application to try to
obtain $212,500 in funds to which he was not entitled, he would be free to order his medical affairs
as he and his doctors see fit. But that is not the situation he is in. He has been convicted of a
federal felony, and his freedoms are therefore reduced, consistent with his pronounced sentence.
In context, the reasons Henley proffers are not extraordinary and compelling within the meaning
of the compassionate release statute.
Also, the Court believes that reducing Henley’s sentence to eliminate any period of
incarceration in favor of mere home confinement would be inconsistent with the purposes the
Court attempted to achieve when it pronounced his sentence nearly a year ago. Under 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a), a sentence should “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” “promote respect for the law,”
and “provide just punishment for the offense.” Here, Henley has admitted participating in a serious
fraudulent scheme aimed at taking advantage of our nation’s generosity during the COVID-19
pandemic. He did so for no reason other than greed. He personally signed and submitted a
fraudulent loan application requesting $212,500. In the application, Henley represented that he
had a company with 23 employees and an average monthly payroll of $85,000, knowing that this
information was false. He also lied to law enforcement agents when initially interviewed about
the scheme. While he ultimately did not receive any of the fraudulently requested funds, this is
only because bank employees became suspicious and declined the loan. This was serious
misconduct. The Court nevertheless imposed a lenient sentence of just six months incarceration,
a punishment well below the guideline range, based on Henley’s cooperation and remorse. Giving
him an even greater accommodation now would minimize the seriousness of his criminal conduct
and undermine respect for the law.
Section 3553(a) also provides that a criminal sentence should “afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct.” While the needs of deterrence may give way in the face of sufficiently
serious medical conditions, the concerns Henley raises do not rise to this level. Allowing a
Case 2:20-cr-00196-BHL Filed 08/16/22 Page 5 of 6 Document 202
defendant who commits the type of felony financial fraud present in this case to avoid any time of
incarceration would undermine the deterrent effect of the sentence the Court pronounced.
Finally, the Court notes that it sentenced two of his co-defendants to similar six-month
sentences. (20-cr-0196-bhl-3, ECF No. 113; 20-cr-0196-bhl-4, ECF No. 145.) A defendant in a
related case likewise received a sentence of six-months incarceration. (20-cr-0197-bhl-1, ECF No.
36.) All three of these similarly situated defendants have already completed their periods of
incarceration. Allowing Henley to avoid any period of incarceration would undermine the need to
avoid disparate sentencing outcomes. It would also be unfair to those other defendants who have
paid the proverbial price for their similar participations in this scheme.
In sum, Henley has admitted committing a serious financial fraud and consequently stands
convicted of a federal felony. As a result of his criminal conduct, he needs to serve the sentence
the Court imposed on him, and the sooner he does so, the better for himself and society. The Court
understands his anxiety about being incarcerated with heart ailments. But these worries do not
trump his obligation to serve his sentence. The Court hopes he will complete his sentence promptly
and thereafter lead a pro-social life, avoiding any further interaction with the criminal justice
system.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for compassionate release, (ECF
No. 199), is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on August 16, 2022.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge
Case 2:20-cr-00196-BHL Filed 08/16/22 Page 6 of 6 Document 202
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wied.92230.202.0.pdf
- Size
- 159,261 bytes
- SHA-256
- b45a501c41bf09176e9ddc58a7be240bc9c90a7e7380c282ea4879d6882eb48b
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com