USA v. Mahler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:21-cr-00402-SRC-1
)
SHAWN MAHLER, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Memorandum and Order
Shawn Mahler seeks compassionate release on four grounds. 	Doc. 90. 	First, Mahler
claims that he suffers from medical conditions that require his release. 	Id. at 2–3 (The Court
cites to page numbers as assigned by CM/ECF.). 	Second, Mahler claims that the Court should
release him so that he can be a caretaker of his children. 	Id. at 3. 	Third, Mahler argues that the
felon in possession of a firearm statute is unconstitutional. 	Id. at 4. 	Fourth, and finally, Mahler
argues that Amendment 821 should have reduced the number of status points that he received.
Id. at 4–5. 	Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that Mahler has failed to establish
extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant a sentence reduction, and that the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh against his release. 	Accordingly, the Court denies Mahler’s
motion. 	Doc. 90.
I. 	Background
A. 	Offense background
The Presentence Investigation Report sets forth the following facts:
According to investigative records from United States Department of
Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Special
Agents and Task Force Officers (TFO), and the Missouri State Highway Patrol
(MSHP), on January 27, 2021, investigators executed a search warrant of Shawn
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Mahler’s residence located . . . in Jennings, Missouri pursuant to an ongoing
investigation involving narcotics and weapons violations in several states.
. . . .
Investigators arrived at the residence and attempted to conduct a knock and
announce, however, [Mahler] opened the front door prior to the agents initiating
the knock and announce. 	Mahler sat down on a couch and was immediately
detained and removed from the residence. 	He advised investigators that his
fiancée Alexis Johnson (unindicted) and juvenile son . . . were inside of the
residence. 	As agents were clearing the living room, an AR style rifle was observed
in plain view leaning against the wall immediately adjacent to where [Mahler] was
previously sitting after he opened the front door. 	While clearing a bedroom, which
appeared to be shared by Mahler and Johnson, investigators observed two firearms
on a nightstand next to the bed in plain view. 	In addition, a number of small plants
of suspected marijuana were observed in plain view on a small table in the living
room of the residence.
. . . .
Investigators proceeded to the basement to continue clearing the residence.
Agents located a sophisticated marijuana growing operation. 	Several modular
“popup rooms” outfitted with lights, ventilation, and timers were immediately
located in plain view in the basement of the residence. 	[Mahler] advised
investigators that he possessed a state issued license to grow marijuana. 	He
repeatedly stated he was able to grow “12, 12, and 12,” implying he was able to
possess twelve “clone” marijuana plants, twelve “flowering” marijuana plants, and
twelve “non-flowering” marijuana plants. 	Mahler further explained he was able
to grow “6, 6, and 6” plants for himself and because he was a caretaker for his
fiancée, he was able to grow an additional “6, 6, and 6” plants for her. 	Agents
located approximately 57 marijuana plants of varying sizes throughout the
residence. 	Agents also located several containers of both harvested marijuana and
processed marijuana throughout the residence. 	A TFO explained to Mahler that
he was outside the scope of state authorized marijuana growing restrictions.
. . . .
Mahler consented to a further search of his residence. 	Investigators
additionally located two sets of ballistic body armor inside of vest plate carriers.
One carrier contained what appeared to be ballistic rifle plates. 	A large quantity
of ammunition which included ammunition for a caliber of firearm that was not
located inside of the residence (7.62 x 39mm), three loaded firearm magazines
which did not match the firearms located inside of the residence, and paperwork
relating to membership in the Gangster Disciples street gang. 	[Mahler] also
granted consent for investigators to search his cell phone. 	Details regarding the
contents of the [Mahler’s] cell phone were not received.
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
. . . .
According to ATF records, the seized firearms were determined to be a
Kimber model, Stainless LW, .45 caliber semi-automatic firearm; a Cobra model,
Patriot 45, .45 caliber semi-automatic firearm; and a Smith and Wesson, model
M&P 15, .223 caliber rifle with an extended capacity magazine. Additionally, 12
rounds of .45 caliber Winchester-Western ammunition and 48 rounds of 9mm
Federal ammunition were seized from [Mahler’s] residence. 	There was no
indication that the firearms were stolen. According to MSHP records, the seized
marijuana was determined to be approximately 755 grams.
Doc. 79 at ¶¶ 13–17 (emphases omitted).
B. 	Procedural background
In July 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Mahler on one count of possession of a
firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and one count of possession of
firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
Docs. 1–2. 	In December 2022, Mahler pleaded guilty to count one: 	possession of a firearms
and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 	Docs. 61–62. 	In exchange, the United
States agreed to move for dismissal of count two: 	possession of firearms in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). 	Doc. 62 at 1–2. 	The United
States also agreed to bring no further prosecution in this district concerning Mahler’s possession
of firearms and ammunition, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, on January 27,
2021, that the United States was aware of at the time of Mahler’s guilty plea. 	Doc. 62 at 1–2.
In June 2023, the Court sentenced Mahler to 48 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to
any sentence imposed in District Court, Oklahoma County, Texas under Docket No. CF-2011-
0022, followed by three years’ supervised release. 	Doc. 87 at 2–3. 	Mahler did not appeal his
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
conviction or sentence, and he is currently serving his sentence at MCC San Diego in California
with a projected release date of May 26, 2026.1
In February 2025, Mahler filed a motion for compassionate release, doc. 90, which the
Federal Public Defender declined to supplement, doc. 91. 	The United States file a response
opposing Mahler’s request, doc. 96, and Mahler filed a reply, doc. 118. 	Mahler’s motion is now
ripe for the Court’s consideration.
II. 	Standard
The compassionate-release statute provides:
(c) 	MODIFICATION OF AN I MPOSED T ERM OF IMPRISONMENT .—The court may
not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—
(1) 	in any case—
(A) 	the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant 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, may reduce the term
of imprisonment (and may 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), after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable, if it finds that—
(i) 	extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction;
. . . .
and 	that 	such 	a 	reduction 	is 	consistent 	with
applicable 	policy 	statements 	issued 	by 	the
Sentencing Commission . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
1 Find an inmate, Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited December 5, 2025).
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
After sentencing, district courts have very limited authority to modify the sentence. 	See
§ 3582(c) (“The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except
[under certain listed exceptions].”); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010)
(“‘[A] judgment of conviction that includes [a sentence of imprisonment] constitutes a final
judgment’ and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances.”
(alterations in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b))); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) (“Within 14 days
after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or
other clear error.”).
The Court may grant compassionate release if the court finds, “after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
III. 	Discussion
A. 	Exhausting administrative remedies
“According to the plain terms of § 3582(c)(1)(A), prisoners can bring compassionate-
release motions on their own once they have exhausted their administrative remedies.” 	United
States v. Houck, 2 F.4th 1082, 1083 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). 	“Exhaustion occurs at
the earlier of either (1) when the prisoner has ‘fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal
a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion’ on his behalf or (2) ‘the lapse of 30 days
from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the [prisoner’s] facility.’” 	Id. at 1083–84
(alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). 	“This requirement is a mandatory
claim-processing rule.” 	Id. at 1084 (citations omitted). 	But “[u]nlike jurisdictional rules,
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
mandatory claim-processing rules may be forfeited ‘if the party asserting the rule waits too long
to raise the point.’” 	Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116, 121 (2017) (quoting Eberhart v.
United States, 546 U.S. 12, 15 (2005) (per curiam)). 	As such, courts enforce the rule when the
opposing party properly raises failure to exhaust as a defense. 	Houck, 2 F.4th at 1084;
Manrique, 581 U.S. at 121. 	The United States has not raised the issue of failure to exhaust here.
Therefore, the Court will proceed to the merits.
B. 	Extraordinary and compelling reasons
1. 	Medical conditions
The first ground for release that Mahler raises is his health conditions. 	Doc. 90 at 2–3.
According to Mahler, he has serious neck injuries that have worsened since he has been in the
care of the Bureau of Prisons, and he suffers from COPD. 	Id.; doc. 118 at 2–6. 	The United
States argues that Mahler’s medical conditions “do not rise to the level of ‘serious physical or
medical condition’ that qualifies him for consideration of a reduction in sentence.” 	Doc. 96 at 7.
The guidelines explain that medical circumstances may warrant a sentence reduction
when the defendant suffers from a terminal illness, exhibits a substantially diminished ability to
take care of himself, requires long-term or specialized care he is not receiving in custody, or is at
risk of an ongoing infectious-disease outbreak or public-health emergency. 	The applicable
guideline provides:
Extraordinary and compelling reasons [that may warrant a sentencing reduction]
exist . . . [if]:
. . . .
(A) 	The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious and
advanced 	illness 	with 	an 	end-of-life 	trajectory). 	A 	specific
prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within a
specific time period) is not required. 	Examples include metastatic
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage
organ disease, and advanced dementia.
(B) 	The defendant is—
(i) 	suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(ii) 	suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment,
or
(iii) 	experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because
of the aging process,
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care
within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she
is not expected to recover.
(C) 	The defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires
long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and
without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in
health or death.
(D) 	The defendant presents the following circumstances—
(i) the defendant is housed at a correctional facility affected or at
imminent risk of being affected by (I) an ongoing outbreak of
infectious disease, or (II) an ongoing public health emergency
declared by the appropriate federal, state, or local authority;
(ii) due to personal health risk factors and custodial status, the
defendant 	is 	at 	increased 	risk 	of 	suffering 	severe 	medical
complications or death as a result of exposure to the ongoing
outbreak 	of 	infectious 	disease 	or 	the 	ongoing 	public 	health
emergency described in clause (i); and
(iii) such risk cannot be adequately mitigated in a timely manner.
U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual §1B1.13(b)(1)(A)–(D) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025).
Based on the evidence in the record, Mahler fails to meet the guidelines’ standard for his
claims. 	The evidence does not reflect that Mahler is currently experiencing a deteriorating
physical or mental condition that would diminish his ability to function in a correctional facility,
and his medical condition is not currently considered terminal. 	Additionally, Mahler fails to
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
demonstrate that the BOP is unable to adequately treat him. 	Applying the plain meaning of the
applicable guidelines, the Court cannot conclude that Mahler purported health conditions
constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction.
2. 	Family circumstances
The second ground for release that Mahler raises is his wish to become a caregiver of his
children. 	Doc. 90 at 3; doc. 118 at 6–8. 	Mahler claims that the Court should release him
because his children’s grades are slipping, his children are acting out, and his wife is struggling
to financially support his children. 	Doc. 90 at 3; doc. 118 at 6–8. 	The United States argues that
Mahler has failed to establish that his children’s caregivers are medically incapacitated and failed
to establish that he is the only available caregiver for his children. 	Doc. 96 at 11.
The applicable guideline provides:
Extraordinary and compelling reasons [that may warrant a sentencing reduction]
exist . . . [if]:
. . . .
(A) 	The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor
child or the defendant’s child who is 18 years of age or older and
incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability or a
medical condition.
(B) 	The incapacitation of the defendant’s spouse or registered partner
when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the
spouse or registered partner.
(C) 	The incapacitation of the defendant’s parent when the defendant
would be the only available caregiver for the parent.
(D) 	The defendant establishes that circumstances similar to those listed
in paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) exist involving any other
immediate family member or an individual whose relationship with
the defendant is similar in kind to that of an immediate family
member, when the defendant would be the only available caregiver
for 	such 	family 	member 	or 	individual. 	For 	purposes 	of 	this
provision, 	“immediate 	family 	member” 	refers 	to 	any 	of 	the
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
individuals listed in paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) as well as a
grandchild, grandparent, or sibling of the defendant.
U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual §1B1.13(b)(3)(A)–(D) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025).
Mahler provides no evidence that supports that his children’s caretakers are incapacitated
and that he is the only available caretaker. 	Instead, the burdens and issues of which Mahler
complains are typical consequences of incarceration. 	Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude
that Mahler’s family circumstances constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that
warrant a sentencing reduction.
3. 	Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
The third ground that Mahler raises is the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
which is the statute that led to Mahler’s conviction. 	Doc. 90 at 4; doc. 118 at 8–9. 	Mahler
claims that the Third Circuit and some district courts have found the statute unconstitutional.
Doc. 90 at 4; doc. 118 at 8–9. 	The Eighth Circuit, however, foreclosed Mahler’s argument in
United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024). 	Accordingly, the Court cannot
conclude that Mahler’s argument constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that
warrant a sentencing reduction.
4. 	Amendment 821
The fourth and final ground that Mahler raises is Amendment 821’s impact on his
criminal-history score. 	Amendment 821 went into effect on November 1, 2023, with retroactive
effect to Part A and subpart 1 of Part B of Amendment 821. 	Part A of the amendment, which is
relevant here, decreases “status points” by one point for individuals with seven or more
criminal-history points and eliminates them for individuals with six or fewer criminal-history
points. 	No eligibility limitations under this part of the amendment apply based on crime type,
violence, or weapons, but these are factors that a court may consider in determining whether to
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
grant a sentence reduction. 	Subpart 1 of Part B of the amendment is not relevant because
Mahler has criminal-history points.
Mahler’s criminal convictions resulted in a subtotal criminal-history score of 7.
Doc. 79 at ¶ 56. 	Because he committed the instant offense while under a criminal-justice
sentence for a 2011 state case, Mahler received two status points. 	Id. at ¶ 57. 	With the two
status points, Mahler’s total criminal-history score became 9, establishing a criminal history
category of IV. 	Id. at ¶ 58. 	Amendment 821 only decreases Mahler’s status points by one
point because he had a subtotal criminal-history score of seven or more. 	See U.S. Sent’g
Guidelines Manual §4A1.1(e) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025). 	With the one-point reduction,
Mahler has a total criminal-history score of 8, which still establishes a criminal history category
of IV. 	In summary, Amendment 821 decreases Mahler’s criminal-history score to 8, which has
no impact on Mahler’s guidelines range. 	Accordingly, the Court finds that neither Amendment
821 nor any other ground constitutes a “extraordinary and compelling reason” warranting a
sentencing reduction.
C. 	Section 3553(a) factors
Even if extraordinary and compelling reasons supported Mahler’s request for a sentence
reduction—which they do not—the Court must “consider[] the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 	Among
others, these factors include “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” as well as the need for the sentence imposed, inter alia, “to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)–(2). 	The Court must also consider “the
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have
been found guilty of similar conduct . . . .” 	18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
The Eighth Circuit affords district courts “broad discretion” in weighing the
section 3553(a) factors. 	United States v. Marcussen, 15 F.4th 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation
omitted). 	District courts need not “mechanically recite the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).” 	United States v. Rodd, 966 F.3d 740, 748 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
“When considering the § 3553(a) factors, ‘[a] district court is not required to make specific
findings; all that is generally required to satisfy the appellate court is evidence that the district
court was aware of the relevant factors.’” United States v. Castillo, 713 F.3d 407, 412 (8th Cir.
2013) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir.
2008)).
After reviewing the section 3553(a) factors, the Court finds that Mahler has failed to
carry his burden for release. 	When reviewing the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of Mahler, the Court finds that these factors weigh heavily against
release.
In this case, law enforcement seized a Kimber model, Stainless LW, .45 caliber semi-
automatic firearm; a Cobra model, Patriot 45, .45 caliber semi-automatic firearm; a Smith and
Wesson, model M&P 15, .223 caliber rifle with an extended capacity magazine; 12 rounds of .45
caliber Winchester-Western ammunition; and 48 rounds of 9mm Federal ammunition. 	Doc. 79
at ¶ 17. 	Additionally, law enforcement seized approximately 755 grams marijuana. 	Id.
Prior to this case, Mahler received felony convictions for stealing (two times), possession
with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a controlled substance, and conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. 	Id. at ¶¶ 37, 40, 45, 50–51, 60. 	Mahler
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
also received misdemeanor convictions for stealing (two times), possession of marijuana (four
times), driving while suspended/revoked (four times), no driver’s license, possession of drug
paraphernalia (two times), and operating a vehicle in a carless and imprudent manner. 	Id. at ¶¶
38–39, 41–44, 46–49, 52–54.
Mahler fails to come forward with anything that would change the Court’s original
analysis at sentencing. 	Releasing Mahler early would neither reflect the seriousness of his
offense nor provide just punishment for his offense. 	And it would give rise to unwarranted
sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants. 	For these reasons, the Court finds that
the section 3553(a) factors weigh against Mahler’s release. 	Having thoroughly considered the
record and all relevant matters, the Court finds no basis to reduce Mahler’s sentence.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Mahler’s [90] Motion for Reduction in
Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c).
So ordered this 5th day of December 2025.
STEPHEN R. CLARK
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:21-cr-00402-SRC Doc. #: 120 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>