USA v. Flores

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	Criminal No. 5:18-CR-50043-001
ADAM FLORES 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court for consideration is Petitioner Adam Flores’ (“Flores”) pro se Motion for
Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 32). The Government was directed to respond and a response
with objection was filed on February 26, 2026. (ECF No. 39). Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), this matter was referred to the undersigned for the purposes of making
a report and recommendation. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends the
Motion be DENIED as Flores has not demonstrated entitlement to compassionate release.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Flores was named in a single count Indictment filed on April 17, 2018, in the Western
District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. (ECF No. 1). Flores was charged with knowingly being
a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Id.) On
June 28, 2018, Flores appeared before Chief U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks and plead
guilty. 	(ECF Nos. 17, 18). 	On November 28, 2019, Flores was sentenced to the statutory
maximum term of 120 months imprisonment. (ECF No. 27, 28). A motion for reduction of
sentence filed by Flores in 2024 was denied by Judge Brooks. (ECF No. 30).
On December 3, 2025, Flores filed this Motion seeking Compassionate Release under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), to which the Court now turns its attention. (ECF No. 32).
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. 	MR. FLORES’ MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
Flores alleges entitlement to compassionate release, saying that he has completed many
rehabilitative programs, that the BOP is not properly applying his First Step Act credits, and that
his medical condition (Crohn’s disease) establishes extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify
his compassionate release. (ECF No. 32).
III. 	UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE
The United States applauds Flores’ rehabilitative accomplishments but argues Flores’
Motion should be denied because Flores’ rehabilitation is neither extraordinary nor compelling
under the governing standards. The Government further argues for denial because (1) Flores has
not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the BOP’ s application of First Step Act
credits, (2) Flores’ medical condition has not deteriorated to the point Flores is unable to provide
self-care, and (3) because the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh against the granting of any such
relief. (ECF No. 39).
IV. 	THE FIRST STEP ACT
Under the First Step Act, a court can modify a term of imprisonment when: (1) the
defendant has fully exhausted all administrative remedies to appeal a failure of the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) to bring a Motion on the defendant’s behalf, or a lapse of 30 days from receipt of
such a request by the warden of the facility; and (2) there are extraordinary and compelling reasons
that warrant such a reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (C)(1)(A). 	The court may modify an imposed
term of imprisonment only to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or Rule 35 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (C)(B)(2).
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies or Lapse of 30 Days from Receipt of Request
by the Facility Warden
The First Step Act’s exhaustion of all administrative remedies or 30-day lapse from receipt
of request requirement is a “mandatory claim-processing rule” that “must be enforced so long as
the opposing party raises it.” United States v. Houck, 2 F. 4th 1082, 1084 (8th Cir. 2021).
Therefore, when opposing parties properly raise the petitioner’s failure to either exhaust all
administrative remedies or wait 30 days before filing a Motion, courts dismiss compassionate
release motions without prejudice. Id. 	Here, the United States challenges that Flores has not
exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the BOP’s application of his First Step Act
credit; the Government represents that documentation from the BOP illustrates Flores only sought
a reduced sentence based on his Crohn’s disease. (ECF No. 39, p. 6).
B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
Even if Flores had exhausted his administrative remedies, under the First Step Act, the
Court must find Flores’ situation serious enough to constitute extraordinary and compelling
reasoning for compassionate release. United States v. Willis, 2022 WL 1072890, at *1 (W.D. Ark.
April 8, 2022). Historically, courts have found sufficient the following situations: (1) a defendant’s
medical condition such as a “terminal illness” or a condition that “substantially diminishes the
ability of the defendant to provide self-care within a correctional facility and from which he is not
expected to recover;” (2) the defendant is at least 65 years old or experiencing serious deterioration
of mental or physical health due to age and has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his term
of imprisonment; or (3) the defendant’s family circumstances include either (i) death or
incapacitation of the caregiver of defendant’s minor child or children or (ii) death or incapacitation
of defendant’s spouse or registered partner qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons for
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
compassionate release. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (C)(1)(A). As noted above, Flores
says he qualifies for compassionate release based on his own medical condition which causes him
to often be bed-ridden and upon his recidivism reduction program completions.
1. 	Medical Condition
From the 187 pages of medical records obtained by the Government and filed under seal,
the Court considers Flores’ medical condition as well as the degree to which those conditions
diminish his ability to provide self-care within the BOP. A large portion of the medical records
are laboratory reports and medication administration records which are not particularly instructive
to the undersigned; however, it is clear from records of clinical encounters that Flores periodically
presents with symptoms of Crohn’s disease to include abdominal pain/discomfort and bloating,
food intolerance, bloody stools, weight loss, and constipation (sometimes reporting multiple
symptoms) as well as symptoms of reflux. The undersigned does not, however, see documentation
that Flores’ condition is so advanced that he cannot provide self-care within his correctional
facility. See United States v. Wilson, 2021 WL 2012304, at *2 (W.D. Ark. May 20, 2021)
(concluding that petitioner suffered from medical conditions but denied relief because his medical
records indicated he was “receiv[ing] ongoing treatment for all of these issues.”). Flores’ medical
records suggest that he has generally received responsive and appropriate treatment while in
custody of the BOP, including medications (some of which he chose to decline), diagnostic
procedures, nutritional counseling and supplemental nutrition. Flores’ Motion does not describe
that he has on-going daily difficulties with self-care.
2. 	Rehabilitation
The undersigned views positively Flores’ completion of RDAP, multiple recidivism
reduction 	programs, 	rejection 	of 	gang 	participation, 	and 	exemplary 	work 	record 	while
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
incarcerated. Nevertheless, the Court cannot reach the merits of Flores’ Motion for a couple of
reasons. First, as noted above, it does not appear Flores has exhausted his administrative remedies
with respect to his BOP recidivism PATTERN score (including any request for reassessment) prior
to seeking relief from this Court. See Streker v. Segal, 2023 WL 5337084, at *1 (D. Minn. June
30, 2023) (“Because [Defendant] has not exhausted [his] administrative remedies [of his FSA time
credits 	claim], 	the 	Court 	recommends 	[his] 	petition 	be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice.”),
recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5333811 (D. Minn. Aug. 18, 2023). 	The Government
suggests that based upon its communication from the BOP, Flores has not exhausted his remedies,
and the Court sees nothing to the contrary in the record before it.
Second, even if Flores has exhausted his administrative remedies, district courts cannot
exercise jurisdiction over the BOP’s classification of an inmate’s recidivism risk. See Pollock v.
Marske, 2022 WL 1218640 (8th Cir. April 26, 2022) (district courts do not possess jurisdiction
over BOP’s custody classification). Regardless of Flores’ score, he possesses no constitutionally
protected liberty interest in his PATTERN score calculation. Prince v. Fikes, 2021 WL 2942311,
at *3 (D. Minn. June 16, 2021) (rejecting argument that petitioner is entitled to time credits claimed
because federal prisoners have no right to a particular security or custody classification),
recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 2936656 (D. Minn. July 13, 2021). If read correctly, Flores
is complaining about his recidivism score and/or that the denial of credits is due to his conviction
type and/or prior criminal history. For this, the Court can provide no relief. The undersigned thus
finds that Flores has not established extraordinary and compelling reasoning for his compassionate
release.
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
C. Section 3553(a) Factors:
Even if Flores were able to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for early
release, the Court does not believe he is a suitable candidate after considering the factors set forth
in Section 3553(a). These factors include “the nature of the circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendants” and “the need for the sentence imposed: to reflect
the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, [] to provide just punishment for the
offense[,] to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct [] … and to provide the defendant with
needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(B), & (D). Section 3582(c)(1) requires the
court to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before granting a motion for
compassionate release.
Flores received the statutory maximum sentence for conduct Judge Brooks found
aggravating – brandishing the illegally possessed firearm at a law enforcement officer prior to
fleeing in a vehicle which reached speeds of 90 mph coupled with the discovery of two additional
firearms upon a search of the vehicle. 	Notably, Flores has a prior federal drug conviction for
distribution of methamphetamine and without application of the statutory maximum (120 months),
his USSG guideline range provided for a longer sentence (120-150 months). (ECF No. 24). The
BOP indicates Flores’ release date is December 28, 2026, and the undersigned does not identify
any factor of § 3553(a) favoring Flores’ release prior to that date.
V. 	RECOMMENDATION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Flores’ Motion for Compassionate Release
(ECF No. 32) be DENIED without prejudice for the reasons stated herein.
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of our report and recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of facts. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March 2026.
__________________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:18-cr-50043-TLB Document 43 Filed 03/06/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>