USA v. Ardoin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 	EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	§
§
versus 	§ 	CRIMINAL NO. 1:15-CR-119-5
§
KODY DWAYNE ARDOIN 	§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant Kody Dwayne Ardoin’s (“Ardoin”) pro se Motion
to Reconsider 3582(c)(1)(A) (#845), wherein he asks the court to reconsider his prior motion for
compassionate release (#802). 	The Government filed a response to Ardoin’s motion for
reconsideration (#851). 	In addition, Ardoin filed a pro se Motion for Clarification (#847),
wherein he requests documentation of Probation’s recommendation to the court as well as
information concerning which judge screened his prior motion under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”). Having considered the pending motions, the Government’s response, the record,
and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the Motion to Reconsider (#845) should be
granted and the Motion for Clarification (#847) should be denied.
I. 	Background
On May 4, 2016, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a four-count
Third Superseding Indictment (#52) charging Ardoin in Count One with Conspiracy to Possess
With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was not
named in the remaining three counts. 	On January 25, 2017, following a three-day trial, a jury
returned a guilty verdict against Ardoin as to Count 1 of the Third Superseding Indictment.
Subsequently, on October 2, 2017, the court sentenced Ardoin to 324 months’ imprisonment
(adjusted by 51 months to 273 months’ imprisonment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)). 	On
Case 1:15-cr-00119-MAC-ZJH Document 852 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

September 28, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Ardoin’s
conviction and sentence. See United States v. Walker, 750 F. App’x 324 (2018). He did not seek
a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 17, 2025, former
President Joseph Biden accorded Ardoin an Executive Grant of Clemency, which reduced his
sentence to 180 months’ imprisonment (#813).
On October 10, 2024, Ardoin filed a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate
release/reduction in sentence (#802) contending that various sentencing errors violated his right
to due process of law. 1 Notably absent from Ardoin’s motion was any indication that he had
exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing his motion with the court. Subsequently, the
Government filed a Response (#803) and an Amended Response (#827). 	In its Amended
Response, the Government affirmed that “the BOP has no records in its possession supporting the
proposition that Ardoin has exhausted his administrative remedies.” Accordingly, the court denied
Ardoin’s motion for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies (#828).
II. 	Motion for Clarification
On February 9, 2026, Ardoin filed his Motion for Clarification (#847), seeking information
concerning “which judge or magistrate intially[sic] screen motion under PLRA to give government
jurisdiction to respond to 18:USC3582(c)(1)(a) motion which under procedural[sic] had have to
see movant has exhaust adminstrative[sic] remdys[sic].” Ardoin seems to contend that the court
should not request a response or consider the Government’s response to his motion for
1 Specifically, Ardoin challenges: (1) an enhancement that increased his offense level by 3 points
for having a leadership role in the drug conspiracy; (2) calculating his criminal history as Category III
rather than Category II; and (3) being held accountable for 4,881 grams of cocaine base that should not
have been attributed to him because 4,620 grams were “unreliable.”
2
Case 1:15-cr-00119-MAC-ZJH Document 852 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

compassionate release/reduction in sentence until after the court determines that Ardoin has
satisfied the exhaustion requirement. The PLRA requires “that inmates complaining about prison
conditions exhaust prison grievance remedies before initiating a lawsuit.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 204 (2007); accord 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Here, Ardoin is seeking compassionate release
or a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); he has not filed a suit challenging
prison conditions. 	The PLRA does not govern motions for compassionate release/reduction in
sentence. 	Instead, § 3582(c)(1)(A) contains its own exhaustion requirement on which the
defendant bears the burden or proof. See United States v. Garcia-Martinez, No. EP-24-CR-0764-
DCG-1, 2025 WL 2427619, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2025); accord United States v. DeJean,
No. 2:18-cr-120, 2025 WL 3687269, at *3 (E.D. La. Dec. 19, 2025); United States v. Mahaffey,
No. 17-54-DLB-MAS-1, at *2 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2025); United States v. Escobar, No. 15-CR-
150-2 (ARR), 2024 WL 2111573, at *2 (E.D. N.Y. May 10, 2024); United States v. Avelar, No.
3:16-cr-0351-B-2, 2022 WL 17096173, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2022); United States v.
Singleton, No. 14-168, 2022 WL 3576767, at *1-2 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2022).
Moreover, as explained in the court’s prior order (#828), the Fifth Circuit has held that
while 	§ 	3582(c)(1)(A)’s 	exhaustion 	requirement 	is 	mandatory, 	it 	is 	“a 	nonjurisdictional
claim-processing rule.” 	United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, the Government must invoke the exhaustion requirement or it is deemed waived.
United States v. McLean, Nos. 21-40015, 21-40017, 2022 WL 44618, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 5,
2022); see United States v. Harden, No. 4:11-CR-127-SDJ, 2025 WL 562716, at *5 (E.D. Tex.
Feb. 20, 2025). 	Therefore, the court will consider the Government’s response to a motion for
compassionate 	release 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	defendant 	has 	properly 	exhausted 	his
3
Case 1:15-cr-00119-MAC-ZJH Document 852 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

administrative remedies and, if the defendant has fulfilled the exhaustion requirement, whether the
defendant is entitled to relief. Thus, to the extent that Ardoin asks the court not to consider the
Government’s response to his motion for compassionate release, his request is denied.
In addition, Ardoin asks for the documentation provided by United States Probation and
Pretrial Services (“Probation”) to the court regarding his motion for compassionate release. As
noted in its prior order (#828), the court previously received Probation’s recommendation that
Ardoin’s motion for compassionate release be denied. Ardoin cites no authority, nor is the court
aware of any, requiring Probation’s recommendation on a post-judgment motion for compassionate
release to be shared with the parties. 	Probation 	is 	a 	part 	of 	the court and provides
recommendations to the court on issues of concern which need not be disclosed in this context.
Thus, the court denies Ardoin’s request for a copy of Probation’s recommendation to the court
regarding his motion for compassionate release.
III. 	Motion to Reconsider
On January 1, 2025, Ardoin filed a Motion to Reconsider (#845), asserting that he
exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing his motion for compassionate release and
attached a copy of a letter entitled “Response to Inmate Request to Staff,” dated September 17,
2024, and signed by Warden C. Humphrey. 	The letter states that it is written in response to
Ardoin’s 	Inmate 	Request 	to 	Staff 	dated 	September 	5, 	2024, 	wherein 	Ardoin 	requested
compassionate release/reduction in sentence based on his interpretation of the application of the
sentencing guidelines. 	The letter states that Ardoin does not “present any extraordinary or
compelling reasons” to warrant a reduction in sentence. The Government, after further review,
located Ardoin’s September 5, 2024, request to the warden and concedes that Ardoin has in fact
4
Case 1:15-cr-00119-MAC-ZJH Document 852 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his motion for compassionate release.
Accordingly, the court will reconsider Ardoin’s motion for compassionate release.
IV. 	Conclusion
In accordance with the forgoing analysis, the court DENIES Ardoin’s Motion for
Clarification (#847) and GRANTS Ardoin’s Motion to Reconsider (#845). 	The court’s
Memorandum and Order (#828) dated September 12, 2025, is vacated and Ardoin’s Motion for
Compassionate Release (#802) is reinstated.
5
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 23rd day of February, 2026.
Case 1:15-cr-00119-MAC-ZJH Document 852 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>