USA v. Smith

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 18-05002-01-CR-SW-MDH
)
TRACY A. SMITH, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 107). The Government filed Suggestions in Opposition. (Doc.
108). The Defendant has failed to reply and the time to do so has elapsed. This matter is now ripe
for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for
Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is DENIED.
Defendant was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment following a jury trial where
Defendant was found guilty of being a felon and unlawful user of a controlled substance in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and (3). The Defendant appealed
and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the district court did not err in sentencing the Defendant
as an armed career criminal. United States v. Smith, 803 Fed. Appx. 973, 974 (8th Cir. 2020).
Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release contends that extraordinary and compelling
reasons exist because of a sentencing disparity caused by the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”) enhancement; rehabilitation beyond ordinary compliance; and her age, time served
and reduced risk. (Doc. 107). The Government argues that Defendant’s motion should be denied
Case 3:18-cr-05002-MDH Document 109 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
because she has not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying a reduction in
her sentence. (Doc. 108).
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits an inmate to move for reduction in sentence if he
exhausted his administrative appeals or the facility’s warden did not respond to his reduction in
sentence request within 30 days. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Court may not modify a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed otherwise. Id. For a district court to be able to grant a §
3582(c)(1)(A) reduction the defendant must meet three conditions: (1) an extraordinary and
compelling reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduction would be consistent with United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.13, including that the defendant is not a danger to
another person or the community; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of compassionate
release. See United States v. Avalos Banderas, 39 F.4th 1059, 1062 (8th Cir. 2022).
I. 	Sentencing Disparity
The Defendant argues that recent Supreme Court decisions undermine the predicates used
to enhance her sentence. In support, the Defendant cites Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360
(2022) and Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021). The Defendant argues under modern
precedent, she would likely not qualify for ACCA, and her sentence today would be capped at 10
years. The Defendant argues that this continued incarceration creates a gross sentencing disparity
in her case constituting an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief.
An extraordinary and compelling reason exists if:
a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years
of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an amendment to the
Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be considered in
determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling
reason, but only where such change would produce a gross disparity between the
sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the
motion is filed, and after full consideration of the defendant’s individualized
circumstances.
Case 3:18-cr-05002-MDH Document 109 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(6). Here, the Defendant fails to show that an extraordinary and compelling
reason exists. The Defendant has only served approximately eight years of her sentence. (Doc.
107, page 1). Based on the plain language of the sentencing guideline, Plaintiff must serve at
least 10 years of her sentence before she may contend an extraordinary and compelling reason
exists based on an unusually long sentence.1
II. 	Rehabilitation
The Defendant points to her rehabilitation efforts in support of a reduction of a term of
imprisonment. However, rehabilitation is not, in itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d). While the Court acknowledges that Defendant’s efforts at rehabilitation
are commendable, she has failed to show how her rehabilitation, even in conjunction with her
other reasons for compassionate release, rise to the level necessary for relief pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) or U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
III. 	Age, Time Served and Reduced Risk
Lastly, the Defendant argues that she is 55 years old and presents an extremely low risk
of recidivism. The Defendant states that this risk assessment is supported by her conduct record,
extensive programming, current trainings, rehabilitation and spiritual enlightenment. (Doc. 107,
page 2). However, these attributes are not extraordinary or compelling reasons to be granted
compassionate release. An extraordinary and compelling reason exists if the “defendant presents
any other circumstance or combination of circumstance that, when considered by themselves or
together with any of the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4), are similar in gravity to
1 Should the Defendant believe that a Supreme Court decision qualifies her for a sentencing reduction, the
appropriate avenue is through 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and not 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Crandall,
25 F.4th 582, 586 (8th Cir. 2022). As the Defendant’s first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion has been fully adjudicated, see
Doc. 78, the Defendant must request permission from the Eighth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. A
successive § 2255 motion may not be filed in a district court unless a panel of the appropriate court of appeals
certifies the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Case 3:18-cr-05002-MDH Document 109 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
those described in paragraphs (1) through (4).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5). The Defendant has not
shown how her age, time served, or her alleged reduced risk qualifies as an “other reason”
similar in gravity to those described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5).
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the record before the Court, including the arguments
contained in the Government’s response, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Pro Se Motion
for Compassionate Release.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	March 17, 2026 	/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:18-cr-05002-MDH Document 109 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4