USA v. Stottlar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 20-cr-061-LM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 068 P
Jared Stottlar
O R D E R
The defendant, Jared Stottlar, suffers from a complex set of medical
conditions that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has inadequately treated for several
years. Stottlar previously filed a motion for compassionate release (doc. no. 141),
which the court denied without prejudice in February 2025. Doc. no. 160. Although
the court was deeply troubled by the inadequacy of Stottlar’s medical care, as well
as BOP’s failure to communicate basic information to Stottlar about his own health,
the court denied relief primarily on the grounds that Stottlar’s crimes were serious
and he had not yet served half of his sentence. This denial was despite the fact that,
given Stottlar’s remarkable rehabilitation since the time of his arrest, he is unlikely
to recidivate.
Presently before the court is Stottlar’s renewed motion for compassionate
release. Doc. no. 174. Stottlar contends that BOP’s inadequate treatment has
continued (and in some ways, worsened), and that the proof of his continued
rehabilitation is even stronger. The government objects. Doc. no. 175. On May 14,
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 27

2
2026, the court held a hearing on the renewed motion, at which Stottler testified.
For the following reasons, Stottlar’s motion (doc. no. 174) is granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A court may grant a sentence reduction, otherwise known as “compassionate
release,” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). To obtain relief, the defendant must show
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction and that a
sentence reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement
on compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). If the defendant makes this
showing, “the district court then considers the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors
and ‘determines whether, in its discretion, the sentence reduction is warranted in
whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.’” United States v.
Burgos-Montes, 142 F.4th 48, 57 (1st Cir. 2025) (brackets and ellipsis omitted)
(quoting United States v. Saccoccia, 10 F.4th 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2021)). “[D]istrict courts
possess significant discretion in evaluating motions for compassionate release.”
United States v. Texeira-Nieves, 23 F.4th 48, 55 (1st Cir. 2022).
BACKGROUND1
On June 9, 2020, Stottlar was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued
in conjunction with a criminal complaint filed in this court. He has been imprisoned
on this matter since that date.
1 The court recounted the facts of Stottlar’s offenses in its previous order
denying Stottlar’s first motion for a sentence reduction.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 27

3
After substantial pretrial litigation, the parties reached a “binding” plea
agreement in October 2022. See doc. nos. 101, 119;2 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).
Under that agreement, Stottlar agreed to plead guilty to a superseding information
charging him with one count of possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more
of methamphetamine (Count One), and one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count Two). Stottlar was subject to a
mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment on each count, and the
sentence on Count Two was statutorily required to run consecutively to the
sentence on Count One. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii); 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(D)(ii). Thus, the mandatory minimum aggregate sentence
was 120 months. In their plea agreement, the parties agreed that Stottlar would be
sentenced to 144 months. See doc. no. 119 at 5-6. In March 2023, the court accepted
the parties’ agreement and sentenced Stottlar to 144 months’ imprisonment.
Stottlar was transferred to BOP custody shortly after his sentencing hearing.
He has been incarcerated at FMC Devens for the entirety of his time in BOP
custody.
2 Although the parties filed their plea agreement in this court in October 2022,
the original superseding information contained a typographical error necessitating
that the parties file a revised plea agreement and a second superseding information.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 3 of 27

4
Colon Cancer3
Stottlar reported to BOP in May 2023 that he had observed blood in his feces.
In June 2023, Stottlar underwent a colonoscopy. During that procedure, doctors
found and removed two polyps, and arranged for them to be biopsied. The results of
the biopsy revealed that Stottlar, who was 44 years old, had colon cancer.
Stottlar has a family history of colon cancer. His father was initially
diagnosed with colon cancer in 2018. While he went into remission for a time, his
father’s cancer recurred in late 2021. He was dead within two months of the
cancer’s recurrence.
Although the June 2023 biopsy results showed that Stottlar had colon cancer,
he did not learn of his diagnosis until July 2023 when he was brought to St.
Elizabeth’s Medical Center for an appointment. At St. Elizabeth’s, a surgeon began
telling Stottlar of his plans to remove a portion of Stottlar’s colon in light of
Stottlar’s cancer diagnosis. Stottlar was shocked to learn he had colon cancer; BOP
had not informed him of his diagnosis before his July 2023 appointment at St.
Elizabeth’s. In addition, neither the surgeon at St. Elizabeth’s nor any medical
3 The following information regarding Stottlar’s medical conditions are drawn
from his medical records and from Stottlar’s own testimony describing his
experiences at FMC Devens. The court has now heard testimony from Stottlar at two
evidentiary hearings, the first occurring on May 24, 2024, and the second occurring
on May 14, 2026. The government presented no witnesses at either hearing, relying
only on Stottlar’s medical records and cross-examinations of Stottlar. The court found
Stottlar credible at both hearings.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 4 of 27

5
professionals within BOP discussed treatment options with Stottlar other than
surgery.
On August 10, 2023, Stottlar underwent a colectomy at St. Elizabeth’s. The
surgery successfully removed the portion of Stottlar’s colon where the cancerous
polyp had appeared. No other cancerous polyps were detected in the surgically
removed portion of Stottlar’s colon. Doctors recommended that Stottlar undergo a
follow-up colonoscopy in a year but otherwise made no further treatment
recommendations. Neither BOP nor the surgeon who performed his colectomy
discussed with Stottlar what he should be doing in terms of self-care following the
procedure.
Stottlar underwent that follow-up colonoscopy on April 23, 2024, at Nashoba
Valley. Several samples were taken and biopsied. The biopsy did not indicate the
presence of cancerous cells. No one at BOP informed Stottlar of the results of his
April 2024 biopsy. He learned of the results for the first time when he read the
government’s objection to his first motion for compassionate release.
Stottlar received another colonoscopy in June 2025. Doctors again found and
removed a polyp from Stottlar’s colon and arranged for it to be biopsied. The
pathology results indicated that the polyp was not cancerous and were sent to BOP
within a few weeks. However, BOP did not inform Stottlar of the result of the
biopsy until October 2025. The government has offered no explanation for this
delay.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 5 of 27

6
Testicular and Abdominal Pain
In July 2023, Stottlar reported to BOP that he was experiencing testicular
pain. An ultrasound performed in August 2023 revealed that Stottlar had a cyst on
his right testicle. On September 11, 2023, Stottlar reported feeling a sharp pain in
his testicle that had increased over the previous twenty-four hours. BOP diagnosed
him with epididymitis and prescribed antibiotics. While Stottlar reported in
November 2023 that his testicular pain had subsided, it recurred in January 2024,
and Stottlar notified BOP of his pain’s recurrence at that time. Another ultrasound
was conducted, which revealed that Stottlar had a varicocele in addition to the
previously discovered testicular cyst. In addition, a urinalysis showed that Stottlar
had blood in his urine.
In April 2024, Stottlar once again reported to BOP that he was continuing to
experience testicular pain a few times per week. BOP medical personnel informed
Stottlar that, because the second ultrasound showed that his testicular cyst had not
grown, BOP did not plan to take further action regarding his ongoing testicular
pain. It was only when Stottlar asked about other options that BOP agreed to send
him to a urologist.
In May 2024, Stottlar met with a urologist. The urologist recommended that
Stottlar receive a nerve block to treat his pain, but further recommended that
Stottlar undergo surgery to repair an inguinal hernia4 before receiving the nerve
4 BOP was aware of Stottlar’s hernia since at least December 2023.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 6 of 27

7
block and before the urologist could determine the underlying cause of his testicular
pain. BOP did not arrange for Stottlar to undergo surgery to repair his hernia until
August 2025.
The hernia, left unrepaired by BOP for over eighteen months, eventually
grew to the size of a grapefruit and visibly protruded from the groin area of
Stottlar’s clothing. He frequently needed to stop what he was doing during the day
and lie down on his bed to reposition the hernia. Stottlar’s testimony made clear
that the pain caused by his hernia and cyst had a dramatic impact on his day-to-day
life.
After BOP finally repaired Stottlar’s hernia in August 2025, they arranged
for Stottlar to undergo testicular surgery to address his cyst. Stottlar testified that,
at a preoperative consultation in November 2025, medical professionals informed
him that the surgery would be laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Stottlar
underwent a surgical procedure on his testicles in December 2025, but it was far
from minimally invasive. Instead, when Stottlar returned to FMC Devens after the
surgery and removed his undergarments, he discovered that the surgery had
involved a large scrotal incision. Stottlar credibly testified that he never gave
informed consent to open surgery on his testicle.
Separately, in November 2025, Stottlar reported to BOP that he had
discovered several lumps on his left testicle. An exam that month confirmed that
Stottlar had two or three small nodules on the left side of his scrotum. BOP
providers told Stottlar they would make a note in his file and that he should speak
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 7 of 27

8
with the urologist regarding treatment when he went in for his testicular surgery in
December. However, when Stottlar spoke to the urologist in December, the urologist
stated he had not seen a note in Stottlar’s file regarding the left-side nodules and
that treatment would first require an ultrasound. Although the urologist told
Stottlar he would order an ultrasound, Stottlar had not received one as of May
2026.
Bradycardia and Dizziness
Stottlar has a family history of heart issues. In 2025, BOP providers
repeatedly documented that Stottlar had a resting heartrate in the forties. On May
7, 2025, BOP diagnosed Stottlar with sinus bradycardia and ordered a cardiology
consultation. Later that summer, Stottlar began reporting dizziness when moving
from sitting to standing.
In September 2025, a cardiologist recommended that Stottlar undergo a
stress test and that he receive a Holter monitor and an echocardiogram. Stottlar
underwent these tests in October 2025, but they did not reveal any issues with
Stottlar’s heart that could explain his persistent dizziness. Stottlar continues to
experience dizziness on a regular basis, and BOP has not done anything else to
diagnose its cause or abate his symptoms. According to Stottlar, BOP’s advice was
essentially to “brace himself” whenever he stands up.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 8 of 27

9
Teeth
Stottlar suffers from advanced dental disease. In May 2025, a BOP dentist
determined that almost all of Stottlar’s teeth were decayed or fractured and
recommended a full-mouth extraction and dentures. After BOP surgically removed
Stottlar’s teeth in June 2025, he began regularly experiencing bony particles
protruding from his gums. According to Stottlar, it is very painful when the
particles break through his gums and they make it difficult to eat and speak clearly.
Although Stottlar has made BOP aware of these bony particles, BOP has not
successfully treated them.
In addition, although BOP removed all of Stottlar’s teeth in June 2025, they
did not provide Stottlar with dentures until March 2026. Stottlar attempted to wear
the dentures, but they were ill-fitting, painful, and seemed to cause additional bony
particles to protrude from his gums. After Stottlar made BOP aware of these issues
with his dentures, BOP concluded that Stottlar was suffering from a non-cancerous
bone tumor in his jaw requiring surgery. As of May 2026, however, no consultation
or surgery has been scheduled. In the meantime, Stottlar is unable to use his
dentures without significant pain.
DISCUSSION
To obtain relief, Stottlar must demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” for a sentence reduction and that a sentence reduction is consistent with
the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on compassionate release. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). In addition, a sentence reduction must be consistent with applicable
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 9 of 27

10
sentencing factors under § 3553(a). The court will first address Stottlar’s
justification for a sentence reduction before turning to the sentencing factors.5
I. Stottlar’s Complex Medical Circumstances and Remarkable Rehabilitation
Combine to Constitute an Extraordinary and Compelling Reason For a
Sentence Reduction
The defendant’s circumstances must be “beyond the mine-run either in fact or
in degree” and present a “powerful and convincing” basis for a sentence reduction.
United States v. Canales-Ramos, 19 F.4th 561, 566-67 (1st Cir. 2021); accord
Rutherford v. United States, 608 U.S. ----, ----, 2026 WL 1485535, at *7 (2026)
(“‘[E]xtraordinary and compelling’ reasons for compassionate release are those that
are especially unusual and convincing.”). The court should undertake “a holistic
review to determine whether the [defendant’s] individualized circumstances, taken
in the aggregate, present an ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason to grant
compassionate release.” United States v. Vega-Figueroa, 139 F.4th 77, 80-81 (1st
Cir. 2025) (quotation omitted). While “rehabilitation alone” does not suffice, “that
limitation does not stop a defendant from combining rehabilitation with other
factors to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason.” United States v.
Duluc-Méndez, 156 F.4th 55, 61 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Sepulveda,
34 F.4th 71, 76-77 (1st Cir. 2022)). And district courts have especially wide
discretion to make “judgment calls” as to the impact of a defendant’s medical
circumstances on the grounds for compassionate release. United States v. Gonzalez,
5 The government does not dispute that Stottlar has adequately exhausted
administrative remedies.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 10 of 27

11
68 F.4th 699, 703 (1st Cir. 2023) (brackets omitted) (quoting Canales-Ramos, 19
F.4th at 567).
In addition to showing extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence
reduction, the defendant must demonstrate that a sentence reduction is consistent
with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on compassionate release. The
policy statement identifies several medical circumstances that suffice to establish
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1).6 For
example, extraordinary and compelling reasons exist when the defendant is
“suffering from a serious physical or medical condition . . . 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.” Id.
§ 1B1.13(b)(1)(B). Extraordinary and compelling reasons also exist when “[t]he
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.” Id. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C).
However, the policy statement does not purport to limit the universe of
circumstances that may constitute sufficient grounds for a sentence reduction. To
the contrary, the policy statement provides that extraordinary and compelling
6 In Rutherford, the Supreme Court held that the policy statement is invalid
to the extent it provides that a sentencing disparity produced by a non-retroactive
sentencing amendment may be considered in determining whether an extraordinary
and compelling reason exists for a sentence reduction. 608 U.S. at ----, 2026 WL
1485535, at *10; see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). That provision of the policy statement
is not implicated by this case.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 11 of 27

12
reasons for a sentence reduction exist when “[t]he defendant presents any other
circumstance or combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves
or together with any of the reasons described [in the policy statement], are similar
in gravity to those described in” the policy statement. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(5).
“[R]ehabilitation of the defendant while serving the sentence may be considered in
combination with other circumstances in determining whether and to what extent a
reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted.” Id. § 1B1.13(d).
Turning to the facts of this case, Stottlar contends that BOP’s inadequate
treatment of his complex medical circumstances combines with his rehabilitative
efforts to justify a sentence reduction. The court first discusses Stottlar’s medical
circumstances before addressing his rehabilitation.
A. BOP Has Inadequately Treated Stottlar’s Serious and Complicated
Medical Circumstances
Stottlar was diagnosed with colon cancer in his mid-forties. His father died of
colon cancer. Although all indications are that Stottlar is currently cancer free, his
father’s colon cancer entered remission before recurring in November 2021, and his
father was dead within months of his recurrence. See United States v. Escobar-De
Jesus, Crim. No. 90-130 (ADC)(HRV), 2024 WL 1230246, at *4 (D.P.R. Mar. 22,
2024) (holding that defendant’s cancer, “while in remission now,” weighed in favor
of extraordinary and compelling reasons).
BOP has failed to communicate basic information about Stottlar’s cancer.
Stottlar was not aware of his cancer diagnosis until he arrived at a preoperative
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 12 of 27

13
consultation regarding a colectomy to remove the cancerous portion of his colon. He
did not learn the result of his 2024 biopsy until he read the government’s objection
to his first compassionate release motion. And BOP took four months to
communicate the results of Stottlar’s 2025 biopsy despite having the pathology
report within weeks of Stottlar’s colonoscopy.7 In the context of a serious medical
condition like colon cancer, timely notice of basic information is fundamental to
obtaining necessary care. BOP’s failure to notify Stottlar of basic information about
his cancer diagnosis weighs in favor of a sentence reduction. See United States v.
Robles, No. 19cr4122, 2022 WL 229362, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022) (failure to
provide “consistent care, monitoring, and treatment required for” serious medical
conditions supported sentence reduction).8
7 Although the 2025 report did not show a recurrence of the cancer, the court
is concerned (based on the totality of the record in this case) that BOP’s negligence
with regard to communication could morph into a delay in treatment or a failure to
treat. In light of his father’s rapid death following the recurrence of his cancer,
Stottler is understandably concerned about the effect of any delay in treatment
should he experience a recurrence.
8 The government’s argument against compassionate release focuses largely on
the treatment that Stottlar has received. It is undisputed that, after Stottlar observed
blood in his feces in May 2023, BOP sent him for a colonoscopy in June 2023. Stottlar
does not dispute that this colonoscopy and the surgery that followed may have saved
his life. The fundamental problem with BOP’s handling of Stottlar’s medical issues
since this colonoscopy is the lack of basic communication and follow-up with him. In
light of his father’s history, Stottlar has been requesting a consultation with a
physician to discuss the apparent decision to wait three years to have his next
colonoscopy. Based on the uncontested record of poor communication in this case,
Stottlar is minimally entitled to a consultation with the medical professional that
made this decision to ensure that professional is fully aware of his unique medical
history. For example, it may be standard to recommend a colonoscopy every three
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 13 of 27

14
Stottlar has also experienced “lengthy and unexplained delays of needed
medical care” for his other conditions, which “[m]any courts have explicitly found
. . . can be extraordinary and compelling circumstances.” United States v. Burr, No.
1:15-CR-362-1, 2022 WL 17357233, at *6 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2022). Although Stottlar
first began reporting his testicular pain to BOP in July 2023 and BOP has been
aware of his testicular cyst since an ultrasound in August 2023, BOP did not
arrange for the cyst’s removal until December 2025. What is more, although BOP
eventually had the cyst surgically removed, the surgical method deployed—open
surgery on Stottlar’s testicle—materially differed from the minimally invasive,
laparoscopic procedure he believed he was receiving and that he consented to.
Stottlar has also discovered additional cyst-like nodules on the left side of his
scrotum which require an ultrasound—an ultrasound that BOP has failed to
provide for over six months.
These issues with Stottlar’s testicles are far from the only medical issues
BOP has dragged its feet in treating. BOP was aware of Stottlar’s hernia no later
than December 2023, but failed to arrange for its repair until August 2025.
Throughout this time, Stottlar frequently experienced severe testicular and
abdominal pain. See United States v. Perez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 288, 293 (S.D.N.Y.
2020) (concluding that defendant’s “persistent pain” supported release). Stottlar
years after a normal biopsy — but a physician aware of Stottlar’s father’s history may
want to adjust that schedule. Stottlar should not have to wait three years to have a
basic conversation about his risk of developing colon cancer in the interim.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 14 of 27

15
went without teeth or dentures for the better part of a year, and the dentures
ultimately provided do not fit and cause him pain. Although BOP believes that
Stottlar’s oral pain and the bony fragments he continues to find in his gums are
being caused by a benign bone tumor requiring surgery, BOP has yet to arrange for
that surgery. Stottlar also continues to experience dizziness when moving from
sitting to standing, and there is no evidence BOP is offering Stottlar treatment to
address this issue—other than by admonishing him to “brace himself” whenever he
stands up.
While BOP is not required to provide an inmate with “the care of [the]
inmate’s choosing, . . . inmates with health issues are at the BOP’s mercy while they
are incarcerated, and they cannot independently schedule needed medical tests or
care.” Burr, 2022 WL 17357233, at *6-7 (quotations and citation omitted). When
BOP fails to provide inmates in its care with timely and adequate medical care,
extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction may exist. Id. at *6.
For the reasons discussed above, BOP’s inadequate treatment of Stottlar’s
numerous medical conditions over a prolonged period of time weigh in favor of a
sentence reduction.
B. Stottlar’s Rehabilitation is Remarkable
The court next considers Stottlar’s contention that a sentence reduction is
justified in light of his rehabilitative efforts. As noted, rehabilitation alone cannot
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. 28 U.S.C. § 994(t).
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 15 of 27

16
However, rehabilitation may be considered along with other circumstances to
conclude that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist.
To call Stottlar’s rehabilitation extraordinary would be a profound
understatement. His rehabilitation began while he was detained at the Strafford
County Department of Corrections (“SCDOC” or “the Department”). While at
SCDOC, Stottlar completed the Department’s “Therapeutic Communities” (“TC”)
program. The TC program is a highly reputable substance use disorder treatment
program. He was admitted to the program in October 2021 and completed it in
January 2022. However, Stottlar’s work at the TC program was so outstanding that
he was allowed to stay on for more than a year after he completed it. A letter from
the TC program, submitted to the court at the time of Stottlar’s sentencing in
March 2023, detailed his efforts:
[Jared] has been in TC for over a year and a half and during
this incredibly long period of time he has been working
diligently on himself and his recovery. Jared still actively
participates in every class and group that occurs in the
unit. He takes nothing for granted and treats his space in
the program as a gift. He shows that gratefulness not only
in his commitment to himself but his commitment to the
structure and integrity of the program. He has been a
support, encouragement, and voice of reason to countless
men who have come through TC on their journey. Jared is
the person people in the room look to as a role model. For
other community members Jared is the person they choose
to speak to for guidance and comfort. Teachers marvel over
how Jared is still as active and invested as he was in the
beginning. It has been our privilege to watch the journey
that Jared has been on for himself. The amount of loss he
has suffered while in TC has been enormous and yet Jared
uses his skills to process and grieve and he continues to
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 16 of 27

17
move himself into healing.9 The positive impact that his
journey has had on the other individuals that have been
fortunate enough to come through TC while Jared has been
here is enormous. Our appreciation and gratitude of who
he has been and how he has carried himself while in the
TC program cannot be [over]stated. Jared has not just
talked about change, he has created it for himself. Whether
it be in his daily routine, his commitment to recovery and
self-love, how he interacts with staff or fellow community
members, Jared carries himself with integrity, honesty and
positivity. We do not often have the chance to observe a TC
[participant’s] journey as long as we have been able to
watch Jared and what he has been able to create for
himself is truly unique.
Doc. no. 116 at 14.
Stottlar’s exceptional work with the TC program was in addition to
completing substantial educational programming at SCDOC. Indeed, Kasey
Dumont, the Department’s Director of Programs, was so taken by Stottlar’s efforts
that she felt compelled to write “the first letter that [she had] ever written” on
behalf of an inmate. Id. at 11. Dumont wrote that Stottlar “started participating in
programming as soon as we began offering classes” after briefly suspending
programming due to COVID-19. Id. She described him as a “model A inmate,” who
was never in trouble, “always respectful and courteous,” and unflinchingly
consistent in actively participating in the over fifty classes he attended at SCDOC.
Id. Although Stottlar earned many certificates, “it was evident that Mr. Stottlar
attended programming to learn how to make changes in his life,” not to accumulate
9 Stottlar’s father died from cancer in January 2022, while Stottlar was at
SCDOC and actively involved in the TC program. His mother died in October or
November of 2021, shortly before Stottlar’s father learned that his colon cancer had
returned.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 17 of 27

18
certificates of completion. Id. Stottlar completed this programming before leaving
his unit to go to the TC program, which is housed in a separate, segregated area at
SCDOC. Before leaving for the TC program, Dumont noted that other inmates on
Stottlar’s unit would seek him out for advice “if they were having a hard time . . . or
feeling stressed out.” Id. Stottlar was “missed greatly” on his unit when he left for
the TC program. Id.
Before transitioning to the TC program, Stottlar completed twenty-five drug
and alcohol classes (receiving a certificate of completion, as only twelve classes are
required), twenty-seven “Seeking Safety” classes (receiving a certificate of
completion, as only ten classes are required), and all eight classes for the “Breaking
Free” program, an online cognitive behavioral program which seeks to assist clients
in learning new coping skills in relation to substance use disorder. This
programming was in addition to numerous participant-led educational courses that
Stottlar completed while at SCDOC—Stottlar completed seventy-eight such courses.
See id. at 12-13; doc. no. 116-1 at 1.
Rounding out Stottlar’s rehabilitative efforts at SCDOC was his spiritual
work with the Department’s chaplain, Deacon Arnold Gustafson, who also wrote a
letter in Stottlar’s support at sentencing. Stottlar began participating in one-on-one
spiritual counseling with Gustafson in November 2021, while also participating in
his classes in the TC program. Gustafson described Stottlar’s entry into the TC
program, and the death of both of his parents in late 2021 and early 2022, as
turning points in Stottlar’s life, and described Stottlar as having dedicated himself
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 18 of 27

19
wholeheartedly to his recovery from substance use disorder. Like the other
character letters from the jail, Gustafson’s account of Stottler’s rehabilitation
stressed his mentorship of other inmates and his compelling leadership abilities.
At his sentencing hearing in March 2023, the court had little doubt that
Stottlar’s pre-sentencing rehabilitation was genuine. All of the character references
and testaments to Stottlar’s rehabilitation were borne out by Stottlar’s continued
efforts after he entered BOP custody. Shortly after arriving at FMC Devens,
Stottlar began working as an Inmate Companion on the Memory Disorder Unit. The
Memory Disorder Unit offers intensive care to inmates with memory disorders, such
as Alzheimer’s disease and various types of dementia, as well as inmates with
certain psychiatric disorders. These inmates require round-the-clock care. Stottlar
testified at the evidentiary hearing on his first compassionate release motion that
he essentially performs the role of a Certified Nurse’s Assistant—helping inmates
clean themselves, addressing their incontinence, helping them shower, changing
diapers, and changing bed linens. Stottlar also helps these inmates obtain
medication, assists them during mealtimes, and generally works to enable their
tasks of day-to-day living. Although Stottlar’s shift technically begins at 5:00 in the
morning and concludes at 1:30 in the afternoon, he is generally working every
moment he is on the unit—which is also where he lives. Stottlar said that, given the
nature of the inmates’ medical conditions, “they don’t remember whether you’re on
shift or not. They just need help.” Doc. no. 167 at 13.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 19 of 27

20
In addition to his work on the Memory Disorder Unit, Stottlar volunteers for
the Comfort Care Program at FMC Devens. As a volunteer with this program,
Stottlar sits bedside with dying inmates during their final moments. Stottlar has
also continued educational programming at FMC Devens, completing courses in
drug education and Naloxone training. He has also completed BOP’s nonresidential
drug abuse program. Finally, he volunteers on the suicide watch team. He has been
designated to have the lowest level of recidivism risk.10
Stottlar’s efforts at FMC Devens have not gone unnoticed by BOP staff. A
licensed social worker at FMC Devens writes that Stottlar shows “exceptional”
respect to the inmates on the Memory Disorder Unit, and that he “showed dignity
and worth for the dying patient that he sat with in their final days doing a
volunteer act that not every person would be comfortable doing.” Doc. no. 141 at 11.
Another BOP staff member said that, in his “extensive dealings with Mr. Stottlar,
. . . he has always shown the utmost respect for me and the rest of the inmate
population he works with. To say he is an asset to the Memory Disorder Unit would
be an understatement.” Id. Yet another BOP staff member wrote that Stottlar
“always displays kindness and patience towards the inmates residing on the
[Memory Disorder Unit], no matter how challenging they are. He offers great
10 Ironically, this would ordinarily qualify Stottlar to be designated for
confinement at a federal prison camp, but he cannot be transferred to a camp setting
due to a medical hold because of his medical conditions.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 20 of 27

21
insight and [judgment] and has gone above and beyond in terms of caring for all
these inmates.” Id.
It is not every day that the court sees a defendant so dedicated to
rehabilitation. Stottlar has taken advantage of every opportunity presented to him
for self-improvement, first by SCDOC, and then by FMC Devens. He did not merely
complete the TC program, he excelled in it. He was so dedicated to his recovery and
such an asset to the TC community that he was permitted to stay in TC for an
additional year-and-a-half after he completed the program. By all accounts,
Stottlar’s time at SCDOC was unlike anything the staff members there had seen
before, to the point where the Director of Programs felt compelled to write a letter
on an inmate’s behalf for the first time in her career.
It is apparent that Stottlar is not merely “checking the boxes” in his
rehabilitation. He is authentic in his desire for self-improvement. That is plain on
the face of every letter written on his behalf. But it is also plain from the choices he
has made in selecting avenues of rehabilitation. Nothing compelled Stottlar to work
on the Memory Disorder Unit—changing diapers and working with one of the most
difficult patient populations for someone untrained in the medical field to work
with. Stottlar chose that work. He chose to do that difficult work because he wanted
to. Similarly, nothing compelled Stottlar to volunteer to sit with dying inmates
during their final moments, offering them comfort as they die. Stottlar chose to do
that too. Nothing compelled Stottlar to stay with the TC program for more than a
year after he completed its offerings. He chose to stay. He could have selected less
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 21 of 27

22
arduous options had he wanted to, but he chose the harder path every time. It is
obvious that Stottlar is not, as SCDOC’s programming director noted, simply
accumulating certificates of completion for the sake of accumulating them. His drive
to rehabilitate himself is genuine and earnest. Stottlar’s rehabilitation weighs
heavily in favor of a sentence reduction.
C. A Sentence Reduction is Consistent with the Policy Statement
The First Circuit has held that district courts should view defendants’
reasons for release holistically. See Vega-Figueroa, 139 F.4th at 80-81. Here,
Stottlar’s complicated medical circumstances, when considered with his profound
rehabilitation, paint a picture of a man whose individualized circumstances are
“beyond the mine-run” in “fact [and] degree,” and which are “both powerful and
convincing.” Canales-Ramos, 19 F.4th at 566-67. Stottlar has demonstrated
extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.
A sentence reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy
statement on compassionate release. As noted, the policy statement sets forth a
non-exclusive list of medical circumstances that may qualify as an extraordinary
and compelling reason. Among the enumerated circumstances are those in which
BOP’s inadequate treatment of a defendant’s medical condition “risk[s] . . . serious
deterioration in health or death.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). BOP’s failures of
communication regarding Stottlar’s colonoscopies in 2024 and 2025 could have
seriously jeopardized Stottlar’s health had the polyps discovered during those
procedures been cancerous. These failures to timely provide Stottlar with basic
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 22 of 27

23
information are particularly concerning in light of Stottlar’s father’s recurrence and
then rapid death from the same cancer. And despite being aware of additional
lumps on the left side of Stottlar’s scrotum since November 2025, BOP has failed to
provide Stottlar with an ultrasound or any meaningful treatment.
The policy statement also provides that extraordinary and compelling
reasons exist when the defendant’s medical condition “substantially diminishes” the
defendant’s ability “to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional
facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.” Id. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B).
BOP’s failure to treat Stottlar’s testicular cyst and hernia for approximately two
years caused Stottlar substantial and recurring pain, and frequently interrupted his
daily activities by requiring him to go lie down in his cell, reposition the hernia, and
wait for the pain to subside. Although BOP eventually repaired the hernia and
removed the cyst, Stottlar continues to develop health issues while in BOP custody
(such as the new lumps on the left side of his scrotum and the painful bony
fragments in his gums), and BOP’s failure to timely treat these health issues
continues to impact his day-to-day life.
Moreover, even if Stottlar’s medical circumstances are not a precise fit with
the examples set forth in the policy statement, the policy statement also provides
that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist when “[t]he defendant presents any
. . . circumstance or combination of circumstances” that are “similar in gravity” to
the extraordinary and compelling reasons expressly enumerated in the policy
statement. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(5). The First Circuit has recently underscored that
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 23 of 27

24
district courts are obligated to give serious consideration to a defendant’s proffered
justification for a sentence reduction even if that justification does not perfectly
align with the examples set forth in the policy statement. See Duluc-Méndez, 156
F.4th at 61-62 (holding that district court erred by denying compassionate release
motion solely on the ground that the defendant’s family circumstances did not fit
within examples set forth in the policy statement, but defendant argued that his
family circumstances combined with his rehabilitation to justify release). Here,
BOP’s flawed treatment of Stottlar’s complex medical conditions combines with his
profound and genuine rehabilitation over the last six years11 to present a
justification for release that is similar in gravity to the medical circumstances
enumerated in subsections (b)(1)(B) and (C).
The policy statement also requires that the defendant not be a danger to any
other person or the community. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)(1)(2). For the reasons
discussed more fully below in the court’s consideration of applicable sentencing
factors, Stottlar is not likely to pose a danger to any person or the community.
While the court recognizes that Stottlar admitted to being a methamphetamine
dealer and to possessing firearms in the course of that activity, Stottlar is not likely
11 Although Stottlar’s rehabilitation began prior to his sentencing hearing, the
court is permitted to take that portion of his rehabilitation into account here. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(e) (“[A]n extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been
unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the term of
imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling reason
reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court does not
preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy statement.”).
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 24 of 27

25
to recidivate given his remarkable rehabilitation and commitment to addressing the
root causes of his unlawful activity.
For these reasons, Stottlar has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling
reasons for a sentence reduction, and a sentence reduction would be consistent with
the policy statement on compassionate release.
II. A Sentence Reduction Is Consistent with Applicable Sentencing Factors
The court next considers whether compassionate release is consistent with
the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Applicable sentencing factors include the nature
and circumstances of Stottlar’s offense, his personal history and characteristics, and
considerations such as promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment,
affording adequate deterrence, protecting the public from further crimes, and
providing Stottlar with needed care, training, and rehabilitation in the most
effective way. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2).
In denying Stottlar’s first motion for compassionate release, the court’s
analysis rested on the serious nature of Stottlar’s offenses and the conclusion that
releasing him with so much time left to serve on his sentence was not appropriate.
Stottlar’s offenses are no less serious today than they were when the court denied
his first compassionate release motion. At the same time (and as the court also
noted in its prior order), other sentencing factors point strongly in favor of release.
For example, as the discussion of Stottlar’s rehabilitation demonstrates, his
personal history and characteristics strongly support a sentence reduction.
Moreover, prior to this case, Stottlar’s criminal record was virtually nonexistent. He
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 25 of 27

26
had zero criminal history points at the time of sentencing. This is Stottlar’s first
incarcerative sentence, and given his substantial rehabilitation, it seems likely to be
his last. For the same reasons, the goal of public protection weighs in favor of a
sentence reduction. BOP itself classifies Stottlar has having the lowest risk to
recidivate, and he has strong family and community support.
In addition, BOP is failing to provide Stottlar with adequate care—let alone
“the most effective” care. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). If released, Stottlar will have
access to the healthcare he currently lacks, and will also have access to a wide
network of outpatient drug treatment programs, support groups, counseling,
vocational training, and the like. Stottlar would also be placed on supervised
release, and his probation officer could assist him in obtaining health insurance,
locating medical providers, and accessing drug and mental health treatment.
Importantly, after accounting for good time credits, Stottler has served
approximately sixty percent of his sentence. Where a defendant establishes
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and he has served approximately
half of his sentence, a sentence reduction may be consistent with the goals of
adequate deterrence, just punishment, and respect for the law. See United States v.
Gil, 484 F. Supp. 3d 19, 25 (D.N.H. 2025).
In sum, applicable sentencing factors tip more favorably in the direction of a
sentence reduction than they did at the time of the court’s prior order denying relief.
And the strength of Stottlar’s justification for a sentence reduction has grown since
that time as well. Given these developments, Stottlar’s extraordinary and
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 26 of 27

27
compelling reasons for a sentence reduction are no longer outweighed by the
applicable sentencing factors, and he has demonstrated entitlement to relief.
CONCLUSION
Stottlar’s renewed motion for compassionate release (doc. no. 174) is granted.
Stottlar’s sentence is reduced to time-served and he is placed on the four-year term
of supervised release set forth in the judgment issued at the time of sentencing (doc.
no. 124). Stottlar will be subject to the mandatory, standard, and special conditions
of supervision set forth in that judgment. The court will issue an amended criminal
judgment.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
June 2, 2026
cc: Counsel of Record
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 178 Filed 06/02/26 Page 27 of 27