Compassionate Release Not Available to Convict Only Because he is Fat & Diabetic
Barry Zalma
Mar 11, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRYGHRXX and se the full video at https://lnkd.in/gefZ6mej and at https://lnkd.in/gHd7_5F3 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
ARSON-FOR-PROFIT IS A VIOLENT CRIME OF THE FIRST ORDER
Post 4752
Of the hundreds of different kinds of insurance fraud the most violent and dangerous is an arson for profit. People, including firefighters, die or are seriously injured in the fires. Daryl Evans was caught, tried and convicted of the crimes and is now serving an 183-month sentence for insurance fraud relating to his arson of several Warren, Ohio properties.
Evans moved the USDC in the Northern District of Ohio, pro se, for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In United States Of America v. Daryl Evans, No. 4:18-cr-00717-1, United States District Court, N.D. Ohio (March 6, 2024) the judge determined Evans was not a candidate for compassion.
Evans argued that his medical conditions, including his untreated diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, sleep apnea, obesity, and age, in combination with his rehabilitation efforts, were extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying early release.
ANALYSIS
Generally speaking, once a court has imposed a sentence it does not have the authority to change or modify that sentence unless such authority is expressly granted by statute. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence upon a motion from the defendant if the defendant filed the motion thirty or more days after the defendant sent a compassionate release request to their warden.
If a defendant’s compassionate release motion meets this exhaustion requirement, the court then considers three factors in deciding whether to grant the compassionate release motion.
The court must decide whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.
Second, the court must ensure that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
Finally, the court must consider all relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Evans exhausted his administrative remedies but did not show the extraordinary and compelling circumstances needed for relief. Evans cites his hypertension, heart failure, sleep apnea, obesity, and age as extraordinary and compelling. However, the Court noted these medical conditions of Evans existed at his sentencing. Facts that exist at the time of sentencing are not extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release.
Evans’ Type 2 diabetes, which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) diagnosed in October 2022, and which the BOP is capable of treating Evans’ diabetes, or other medical conditions. Evans’ medical records showed the court that when he was diagnosed, the doctor recommended a life-style modification and to recheck Evans’ HA1c at a later date. Evans was given educational materials and assented to his understanding and his condition improved.
Because Evans offered no extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release the Court briefly discussed why, even if Evans had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances, § 355(a) factors stop early release. While Evan’s extensive rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated are commendable, these efforts are insufficient to overcome the severity of his crimes. In fact, Evans ordered three arsons of two properties, which put Warren community members at risk of death or serious injury. In exchange, he received $146,000 in insurance payments (an amount he currently owes in restitution). His petition was refused.
ZALMA OPINION
I have personally investigated several arson fires and advised insurers with regard to many more. Arson-for-Profit is the most vicious and reprehensible variety of insurance fraud. People die in those fires – sometimes the arsonist – including neighbors, tenants, police and firefighters. His sentence was appropriate and its a shame that the USA must pay to feed, house and medically treat Mr. Evans. The punishment is appropriate and he is one of the least likely prisoner in the federal system entitled to compassion.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH;
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
