USA v. Petters et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Katharine T. Buzicky, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Plaintiff.
John C. Conard, THE CONARD LAW FIRM, 331 South Second Avenue, Suite
705, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Defendant.
Defendant Thomas Petters is serving a 50-year sentence in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons after being convicted of 20 counts related to wire fraud, mail fraud, and
money 	laundering. 	Petters 	moves 	for 	compassionate 	release 	under 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because the Court finds that Petters has not presented extraordinary
and compelling reasons to justify compassionate release, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
The relevant facts related to Petters’s conviction and sentence are set forth in
United States v. Petters, 663 F.3d 375 (8 th Cir. 2011) and are incorporated by reference
here.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 8-364 (JRT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYNG DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-JRT-AJB Doc. 709 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
DISCUSSION
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court may modify a defendant’s sentence if, after considering the statutory
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), it finds that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “such a reduction is consistent with
applicable 	policy 	statements 	issued 	by 	the 	Sentencing 	Commission.” 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
Under the Sentencing Commission’s applicable policy statement, “[e]xtraordinary
and compelling reasons exist” when “[t]he 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.” 	U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2). 	Additionally, a catch-all
provision allows courts to find “other reasons” that are “similar in gravity” to those
expressly 	listed 	as 	examples 	of 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons. 	U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(5). The Sentencing Commission’s statements and commentary are “relevant
but 	not 	binding” 	in 	analyzing 	whether 	a 	defendant’s 	circumstances 	warrant
compassionate release. United States v. Marcussen, 15 F.4th 855, 859 (8 th Cir. 2021).
Defendants may move for compassionate release once they have “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 . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-JRT-AJB Doc. 709 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
The defendant bears the burden of showing that compassionate release is appropriate.
United States v. Avalos Banderas, 39 F.4th 1059, 1062 (8 th Cir. 2022).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Petters filed his request for release with the warden on May 30, 2025. (Petters’
Ex. 2, July 11, 2025, Docket No. 696-2.) 	He did not receive a response within 30 days,
meaning that Petters’ claim was effectively denied, and he has therefore met the
administrative-exhaustion requirement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Petters argues release is warranted because of: (1) his age and physical condition,
(2) the unintentionally punitive nature of his sentence, and (3) substantial evidence of
Petters’ rehabilitation. The Court will address each argument in turn.
First, Petters highlights that he is over the age of 65, is experiencing serious
physical deterioration, and has served at least 10 years of his 50-year prison term, all of
which are criteria expressly contemplated by the guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2).
As evidence of deterioration, Petters points to a recent rise in blood markers (which he
believes is related to a pituitary tumor); degeneration of hearing and vision; knee pain;
arthritis in his hip and knee; and herniated discs in his back. (Motion for Compassionate
Release from Custody (“Mot.”) at 6, July 11, 2025, Docket No. 696.) Petters also expresses
concern that inadequate preventative care may cause his health to worsen.
The Court has denied compassionate release for lack of serious deterioration when
the defendant’s medical conditions are not terminal and do not diminish the defendant’s
ability to care for themselves. 	See United States v. Chase, Crim. No. 11-150 2025 WL
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-JRT-AJB Doc. 709 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
1555990, at *3 (D. Minn. June 2, 2025). Here, Petters is neither afflicted with a terminal
condition nor is he unable to care for his conditions. Petters is receiving treatment for his
pituitary tumor and receives routine medical exams, screenings, and care as needed.
(Resps.’ Ex. 1, Aug. 12, 2025, Docket No. 703.) Petters’ age-related physical conditions
are not of the exceptional kind that warrant release.
Second, Petters argues that his incarceration at Leavenworth qualifies as an
extraordinary and compelling circumstance under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5)’s catch-all
provision because of the distance between him and his family and his exposure to more
violent inmates than he would have encountered if incarcerated in Minnesota.1 Petters
relies on case law in which courts have recognized the proposition that a sentence-
reduction could be warranted if a sentence is “harsher and more punitive” than intended.
See United States v. Jackson, Crim. No. 21-537, 2024 WL 4826466 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2024).
Petters is now incarcerated the federal correctional institution in Milan, Michigan.2
Because Petters is no longer incarcerated at Leavenworth, the issue of whether his
incarceration at Leavenworth constitutes extraordinary and compelling circumstances
appears to be moot. And to the extent that Petters would argue that Milan is similarly far
1 The Bureau of Prisons determines the location of individuals’ incarceration and seeks to
place inmates “in a facility within 500 driving miles of [their primary] residence” when
practicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a)–(b).
2 See Inmate Locator, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last
visited Apr. 21, 2026).
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-JRT-AJB Doc. 709 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
from his family, the Court finds that the location of Petters’s imprisonment falls far short
of creating extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate
release.
Finally, Petters claims that his rehabilitation—evidenced by numerous letters of
support, a clean prison record, his efforts in collecting restitution for the victims of his
crimes, and his work helping fellow inmates—when considered alongside his age,
deteriorating health, and distance from his family, create extraordinary and compelling
circumstances to grant compassionate relief. The Court appreciates Petters’ cooperation
in pursuing substantial restitution for his victims. 	However, “rehabilitation of the
defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason . . . .” 	U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(d). 	The rehabilitation shown by Petters, even considered alongside his other
arguments for release, is insufficient to warrant compassionate release at this time.
However, the length of Petters’ sentence, considering his age and health, suggests that
compassionate release may well be appropriate at a future date.
CONCLUSION
Because Petters has failed to show extraordinary and compelling reason to justify
compassionate release, the Court will deny the motion.3
3 The Court need not reach the question of whether the compassionate release of Petters
would be consistent with the section 3553(a) sentencing factors.
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-JRT-AJB Doc. 709 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Petters’ Motion for Compassionate Release (Docket No. [696]) is
DENIED.
DATED: April 27, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim_____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-JRT-AJB Doc. 709 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 6