USA v. CAHILL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V .
FRANCIS CAHILL,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:22-cr-00003-LEW
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
On October 3, 2022, I sentenced Mr. Cahill to a term of 72 months imprisonment
following his guilty plea to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. 	Last April, I
reduced Mr. Cahill’s sentence to 65 months following a Joint Agreement for Sentencing
Reduction (ECF No. 71) to reflect a retroactively applied amendment to the sentencing
guidelines. 	On August 13, 2024, Mr. Cahill filed a Motion for Compassionate Release
(ECF No. 79) based on his age and deteriorating mental and physical health.
BACKGROUND1
Mr. Cahill has had several adult criminal convictions starting in 1969. In 1978, Mr.
Cahill was convicted on state charges of murder in Texas. After serving ten years, he was
paroled, then imprisoned for violating his parole, then escaped imprisonment. In 1999, Mr.
Cahill was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont having been
1 The background is drawn from the Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Compassionate Release (ECF No. 85), which Mr. Cahill does not dispute, Def.’s Response (ECF No. 86)
at 1, Mr. Cahill’s Motion (ECF No. 79) and Reply (ECF No. 86) and their attached medical records, as well
as the hearing on Mr. Cahill’s Motion held on December 20, 2024.
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
found to be a felon in possession of five firearms. In 2010, following imprisonment for his
Vermont conviction, Mr. Cahill was transferred to the Texas Department of Corrections to
address his previous state parole violation. After his release in 2018, he was paroled to a
halfway house in Texas, which he fled. 	He also violated his federal parole by failing to
report to the U.S. Probation Office. 	In 2021, Texas authorities contacted Maine State
Police for help locating Mr. Cahill. Maine State Police found him living in a house owned
by Carl Weeks, Jr. Police contacted Mr. Cahill, who admitted he had fled to New England
and had two firearms in his bedroom. The police obtained a warrant but could not find the
guns where Mr. Cahill had specified. After interviewing Mr. Weeks, police learned he had
moved the guns from the defendant’s room to a closet. Law enforcement recovered both
guns, a .22 caliber rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, and Mr. Cahill was subsequently indicted
on the charge for which he now seeks release.
At Mr. Cahill’s sentencing I was aware he had had his knee replaced and was
experiencing mobility issues as well as high blood pressure. See Revised Presentence
Investigation Report (ECF No. 42) ¶¶ 51-52. Likewise, I considered his advanced age and
physical condition in imposing a sentence. Sentencing Tr. (ECF No. 57) at 27. Mr. Cahill’s
criminal history and offensive conduct gave a sentencing guideline range of 30 to 37
months incarceration. 	I imposed an upward departure and sentenced Mr. Cahill to 72
months imprisonment. I found this departure was warranted, in part, because Mr. Cahill’s
criminal history showed a “manifestly unyielding tendency toward violence” and his case
posed “a particular danger to the community.” Sentencing Tr. at 27.
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Mr. Cahill now moves for compassionate release on the basis that it is supported by
his advanced age and a litany of medical conditions he is experiencing while incarcerated.2
As of May 2024, he was “very incapacitated . . . using a cane and then having to hold onto
walls,” Def.’s Add’l Attach. (ECF No. 86-1) at 253, and he currently uses a wheelchair,
Def.’s Mot. ¶ 13. Mr. Cahill’s medical records also show he has an abnormal lung lesion,
Def.’s Add’l Attach. at 248, and is exhibiting signs of having a collapsing and/or infected
lung, id. at 188. His medical history includes hypertension, and “possible aortic stenosis.”
Id. at 253. More recently, Mr. Cahill, who is now 75, has been hospitalized multiple times
for sepsis stemming from infections where he also exhibited urinary incontinence, altered
mental status, and high fevers. See generally, id. at 13, 28-29; Def.’s Add’l Attach. at 29.
DISCUSSION
A. LEGAL STANDARD
A district judge can “vacate, alter, or revise a sentence previously imposed,” only
in “narrowly circumscribed” circumstances. 	United States v. Mercado-Flores, 872 F.3d
25, 28 (1st Cir. 2017). By statute, I may reduce Mr. Cahill’s sentence if “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” support the reduction when considered after the statutory sentencing
factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Additionally, the Defendant
must exhaust his administrative remedies, id. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which Mr. Cahill has done
here. Def.’s Mot. ¶¶ 6-8. In assessing whether Mr. Cahill qualifies for a reduced sentence
2 In addition to his age and medical conditions, Mr. Cahill’s pleadings note “he has served approximately
65% of his sentence.” Def.’s Reply at 5. However, Mr. Cahill’s time served falls short of the U.S.S.G.
policy statement cutoff. 	See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2) (“Extraordinary and compelling reasons exist
[where:] The defendant (A) is at least 65 years old; (B) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical
or mental health because of the aging process; and (C) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or
her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.”).
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
I must consider: (1) if he has presented “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances, 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) if a reduction in sentencing would be “consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” id.; and (3) under any
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if a reduction is warranted in whole or part given
the circumstances. 	United States v. Texeria-Nieves, 23 F.4th 48, 52 (1st Cir. 2022).
However, “the section 3553(a) factors may serve as an independent basis for a district
court’s decision to deny a compassionate-release motion.” United States v. Saccoccia, 10
F.4th 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2021). Here, because I find the section 3553(a) factors do not support
Mr. Cahill’s release, his motion for compassionate release will be denied.
B. 3553(a) F ACTORS
In considering a motion for compassionate release the court must consider “the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.”3 	18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). In addressing these factors district courts “need not tick off each and every
factor in a mechanical sequence.” Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 10.
3 The 3553(a) factors are:
(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; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing
range established [under the applicable guidelines]; (5) any pertinent policy statement (A)
issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . (B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g),
is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The Government argues that these factors do not support a reduction as Mr. Cahill’s
history of criminal convictions and violence coupled with his underlying offense make him
a particular danger to the community. 	The Government further argues that Mr. Cahill’s
lengthy sentence was warranted by the seriousness of his crime and, because I was aware
of Mr. Cahill’s age and medical issues, a reduction in sentence would undermine respect
for the law and fail to have a deterrent effect.
At his compassionate release hearing, counsel for Mr. Cahill argued that his age,
current medical conditions, and limited mobility mean he is no longer a danger to the
community. Carol Dean, a Maine retiree and companion to Cahill for the past five years,
testified that she had no concerns about Mr. Cahill’s history of violence and that Mr. Cahill
had never been violent toward her. Ms. Dean also testified that if Mr. Cahill’s motion were
granted, he could live with her and be located about 30 minutes from a hospital.
Defendant’s counsel argues this lowers Mr. Cahill’s risk of recidivism.
I agree with the Government. At sentencing I was aware of Mr. Cahill’s advanced
age and mobility issues, and despite his recent medical issues, which are undoubtedly
troubling to him, my analysis of his history and characteristics as well as the nature and
circumstances of his offense is largely unchanged. I found Mr. Cahill’s case to be one that
“poses a particular danger to the community.” 	Sentencing Tr. at 27. 	This was largely
based on Mr. Cahill’s criminal history and its tendency toward violence. Mr. Cahill’s first
adult conviction was for assault where he forced a woman to have sex with him at
knifepoint. 	Revised Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 24. 	Ten years later he was
convicted for murder. Id. ¶ 33. Mr. Cahill claims this was an accidental discharge, which
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
is contradicted by what the victim’s wife told police: that Mr. Cahill shot her husband and
then held her and her daughter at gunpoint. 	Id. 	Mr. Cahill’s arrest history also
demonstrates a concerning proclivity for violence. 	He has been arrested for aggravated
rape though the charge was dismissed, id., ¶ 42 simple assault where his ex-girlfriend told
police he had punched her in the head until she told him she would not leave, id. ¶ 44, and,
in 2020 at the age of 71, elevated aggravated assault where a man reported Mr. Cahill had
hit him in the head with a crowbar, id. ¶ 45. 	Against this history of violence continuing
into Mr. Cahill’s seventies, I do not find his argument that he is no longer dangerous
particularly persuasive. While his diminished mobility lessens his ability to physically act
on violence, his case is still serious and characterizable as presenting a danger to the
community. 	Limited walking ability typically does not prevent possession, or use, of a
firearm by a prohibited person.
Also relevant is that Mr. Cahill had already previously been convicted as being a
prohibited person in possession of firearms and has continually demonstrated that
incarceration appears to have not reduced his recidivist tendencies. While Mr. Cahill has
shown he has a place to reside should he be released, he has not shown that he would
remain there, and the historical record suggests the contrary. 	Even if wheelchair bound,
Mr. Cahill’s promise to follow parole conditions provides me little comfort against the
backdrop of his history breaching the law, court orders, and prison walls. 	In short, the
nature and length of Mr. Cahill’s criminal history in light of the 3553(a) factors militate
against reduction of his sentence.
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
CONCLUSION
I sympathize with Mr. Cahill’s health struggles. 	However, and for the foregoing
reasons, Mr. Cahill’s Motion for Compassionate Release is DENIED (ECF No. 79).
SO ORDERED .
Dated this 8th day of January, 2025.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 1:22-cr-00003-LEW Document 96 Filed 01/08/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>