USA v. Paxton

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
VS. 	Criminal No. 6:22-cr-60003-SOH-MEF-1
BARRY W. PAXTON 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court are several motions filed by Defendant, Barry W. Paxton
(“Paxton”). On May 28, 2024, Paxton filed a pro se Motion for Compassionate Release Under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) and the First Step Act. (ECF No. 39). His pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) was filed the same day. (ECF No. 40). On July 1, 2024, the Court
appointed counsel to represent the Defendant in connection with any motions for compassionate
release pursuant to § 603 of the First Step Act of 2018. 	(ECF No. 41). 	AFPD Anna Williams
entered her appearance of the Defendant’s behalf on September 3, 2024. 	(ECF No. 45). 	Ms.
Williams filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel for an Amendment 821 Point Reduction on
October 1, 2024 (ECF No. 47), and on October 22, 2024, the Court by Text Only Order granted
the motion and appointed the Federal Public Defender for any such motion. On October 25, 2024,
a Motion for Issuance of an Order Stating Defendant’s Criminal History Point Reduction Pursuant
to Amendment 821 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines was filed on Paxton’s behalf. (ECF
No. 49). 	On January 28, 2025, a Supplemental Motion for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to
Section 603 of the First Step Act of 2018 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) was filed. (ECF No.
52). The United States responded to Paxton’s motions on February 24, 2025. (ECF No. 58). The
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
motions are ripe for decision.1 Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the
Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the
undersigned for report and recommendation.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On March 2, 2022, Paxton was charged in a six-count Indictment filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 1). Counts One, Two, Three and
Five charged Paxton with distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and
841(b)(1)(C), while Counts Four and Six charged Paxton with distributing more than 50 grams of
a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(B)(viii). (Id.).
On October 7, 2022, Paxton appeared with his retained counsel before Judge Hickey for a
change of plea hearing. 	(ECF No. 26). 	The Court determined that Paxton was not under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication and was able to understand the proceedings; he was
informed of his rights; he was informed of the maximum possible penalties; and pursuant to a
written Plea Agreement presented to the Court, Paxton entered a plea of guilty to Count Six of the
Indictment charging him with distribution of more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance
containing methamphetamine. (Id.; ECF No. 27). Sentencing was deferred pending preparation
of a presentence investigation report.
The United States Probation Office issued its initial Presentence Investigation Report
(“PSR”) on December 8, 2022. (ECF No. 28). In it, Paxton was reported to be responsible for
1 Also pending before the Court is Paxton’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed on August 9, 2024. (ECF No. 42). A
Report and Recommendation on that Motion to Vacate was filed on February 5, 2025. (ECF No.
55). Paxton has not filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
482.621 grams of actual methamphetamine, and he was found to be a career offender. (Id., ¶¶ 30,
32). 	Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Paxton’s base offense level was determined to be 32.
(Id., ¶ 37). 	No specific offense characteristics adjustments were reported, nor were any victim
related adjustments, or any adjustments for role in the offense of for obstruction of justice noted.
(Id., ¶¶ 38-41). Because Paxton was (1) at least 18 years old at the time he committed the instant
offense, (2) the instant offense is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance
offense, and (3) Paxton has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense, he was reported to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a),
and pursuant to the table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), his offense level was raised to level 34.
(Id., ¶ 43). He received a three-level reduction for his acceptance of responsibility, reducing his
total offense level to 31. (Id., ¶¶ 44-46).
Paxton’s extensive criminal history resulted in a subtotal criminal history score of 22, but
because he committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, two points were
added under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), resulting in a total criminal history score of 24, placing him in
Category VI. (ECF No. 28, ¶¶ 76-78). It was also reported that as a career offender, his criminal
history category must be VI pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). (Id., ¶ 79). The Government made
no objections to the PSR. (ECF No. 29). Paxton submitted no objections to the PSR. (ECF No.
32-1).
A final PSR was submitted to the Court on February 2, 2023. 	(ECF No. 32). 	With no
changes having been made to the PSR, Paxton’s total offense level was 31, and his total criminal
history score of 24 (and status as a career offender) placed him in criminal history category VI.
(Id., ¶¶ 46, 78, 79). Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), the statutory range for custody was
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
a minimum term of imprisonment of five years, with a maximum of 40 years. (Id., ¶ 111). The
advisory Guidelines range for imprisonment was 188 to 235 months. (Id., ¶ 112).
Paxton’s sentencing hearing was held on October 30, 2023. (ECF No. 36). 	Paxton was
sentenced to serve 188 months imprisonment, to be followed by four years of supervised release,
and payment of a $100 special assessment was ordered. (Id.). The Court’s Judgment was entered
on October 31, 2023. (ECF No. 37). Pursuant to the written Plea Agreement, Paxton waived his
right to directly appeal the conviction and sentence (ECF No. 27, ¶ 9), so no direct appeal was
taken.
II. 	THE PENDING MOTIONS
The sequence of Paxton’s currently pending motions for compassionate release or sentence
reduction began with his initial pro se filing on May 28, 2024. 	In his initial pro se motion for
compassionate release, Paxton claims he suffers from numerous medical conditions, including
“Chronic Lung Disease requiring use of a CPAP Machine, Chronic Back Pain, Shoulder Pain
(Both)[,] Hip Pain, Hypertension, Hyperlipidem[i]a, Obesity, PTSD, Reflux, Tinnitus, and Kidney
Disease,” all of which he contends “would be extremely serious if he were [to] contract COVID-
19.” (ECF No. 39). He also asserts that he “has done classes” which support his request for relief.
(Id. at 3). 	In his pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction, he claims that extraordinary and
compelling reasons support his release, and he proposes to be released to live with his brother in
Springdale, Arkansas. (ECF Nos. 40, 40-1). At that time, he noted prescriptions for Motrin 800
mg, Cymbalta, and Prilosec, and use of a CPAP machine. (ECF No. 40-1 at 4). He stated he did
not need assistance with self-care, and that he would have community support, including from his
mother, to assist with his medical needs. 	(Id. at 5). 	In the Supplemental Motion filed by his
appointed counsel, Paxton claims he has serious medical conditions, including “stage 3 chronic
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
kidney disease, sleep apnea, a rotator cuff tear, hypertension, and chronic back pain,” that he has
a disabled mother who is in need of a caretaker, and that because of the classes he has taken while
in the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) he no longer presents a danger to the community, all of which
he contends constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for his compassionate release or a
sentence reduction. (ECF No. 52).
The Government agrees that Paxton has exhausted his administrative remedies, but it
opposes his motions for compassionate release or sentence reduction, arguing that Paxton has
failed to establish the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons to support the requested
relief. (ECF No. 58).
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Because sentences are final judgments, a court ordinarily “may not modify a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed[.]” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). One narrow exception is the
First Step Act (“FSA”), passed by Congress in 2018. Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).
The FSA amends 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to permit incarcerated defendants in certain
circumstances to file motions with the court seeking compassionate release. Id. Compassionate
release allows defendants with “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to leave prison early. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Such a reduction in sentence must consider the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The burden to establish that a sentence reduction is warranted under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) is on the defendant. See United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir.
2016).
Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to describe what “should be considered
extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release and fashion “the criteria to be
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
applied and a list of specific examples.” 	See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 	The Sentencing Commission
policy statement, as amended and expanded in November 2023, responded by identifying
additional categories of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying compassionate release.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(4), amend. 814. The first four categories pertain to a defendant’s: (1)
medical circumstances; (2) advanced age and deteriorating health in combination with the amount
of time served; (3) compelling family circumstances; and (4) victimization by correctional staff
while in custody.2 Id.
While an inmate’s serious medical circumstances were always relevant to a compassionate
release motion, Amendment 8143 modified, and expanded, the list of specified “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction. Now, federal prisoners may seek early release not
only for their own serious medical conditions, but also to care for incapacitated family members,
including minor children, a spouse or registered partner, a parent, a grandchild, grandparent, or
sibling “whose relationship with the defendant is similar in kind to that of an immediate family
member, when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for such family member.” See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3).
“[T]he extraordinary-and-compelling standard sets a very high bar and authorizes sentence
reductions only in ‘truly exceptional cases.’” United States v. Logan, 532 F.Supp.3d 725, 729-30
(D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2021) (quoting United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 287-88 (4th Cir. 2020)).
Further, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “[t]he compassionate release
2 Additional categories include a catch-all, “other reasons” category, for a “circumstance or
combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves or together with any of the
reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4), are similar in gravity to those described in
paragraphs (1) through (4)” and a category for “unusually long sentences,” neither of which are
applicable here. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5) and (6).
3 Effective on November 1, 2023.
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
statute is not a freewheeling opportunity for resentencing ….” United States v. Crandall, 25 F.4th
582, 586 (8th Cir. 2022).
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may grant a motion for sentence reduction only
if the following three requirements are met: (1) there are extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting the reduction; (2) the reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements
issued by the United States Sentencing Commission; and (3) the district court considers the factors
set forth in § 3553(a), to the extent they are applicable. 	If the district court finds all these
requirements are met, then § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) provides that a district court “may” reduce the
sentence. Use of the word “may” is “quintessentially discretionary language.” United States v.
Sutton, 962 F.3d 979, 986 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1005 (6th Cir.
2020) (“This last requirement confirms an overarching point: The district court has substantial
discretion. The statute says that the district court ‘may’ reduce a sentence if it finds the first two
requirements met; it does not say that the district court must do so. Even when those conditions
are met, therefore, a district court may still deny relief if it finds that the ‘applicable’ 3553(a)
factors do not justify it.”) (internal citations omitted).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Paxton’s Medical Conditions
During Paxton’s sentencing hearing on October 30, 2023, the Court calculated the advisory
Guidelines range based upon a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of VI,
resulting in a range of 188 to 235 months imprisonment. The Court imposed a sentence of 188
months imprisonment, at the low end of the range, noting in its Statement of Reasons that the
sentence was imposed “[t]o reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment for the offense.” (ECF No. 38 at 2).
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Regarding Paxton’s physical condition, the PSR reported that “he suffers from back pain,
shoulder pain, neuropathy in both legs, sleep apnea, stomach issues, and a hernia.” (ECF No. 32,
¶ 99). Concerning his mental and emotional health, the PSR reported that “he suffers from post-
traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and insomnia.” 	(Id., ¶ 100). 	None of these
conditions were listed in the PSR as terminal, disabling or incapacitating. Paxton did not object
to this information in the PSR. 	“A fact in a PSR to which the defendant has not specifically
objected is a fact admitted by the defendant.” See United States v. Abrica-Sanchez, 808 F.3d 330,
334 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. White, 447 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006)). Nor
did Paxton submit any sentencing memorandum to the Court arguing that these medical conditions
supported either a downward departure or a downward variance from the Guidelines. 	He now
relies on many of these same medical conditions as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to
support his request for compassionate release or a sentence reduction. Additionally, Paxton now
relies on another medical condition, a diagnosis of stage 3 chronic kidney disease, to support his
claim that his medical conditions rise to the level of an “extraordinary and compelling reason” to
support his early release or a sentence reduction.
As the Government correctly notes, Courts that have granted compassionate release based
on a prisoner’s health problems “largely have done so for defendants who have already served the
lion’s share of their sentences and presented multiple, severe, health concerns.” United States v.
Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2021). Requests for compassionate release based solely
on an inmate’s medical condition are viewed by courts as “an extraordinary and rare event,” and
they are granted only in cases of notably severe conditions. See White v. United States, 378
F.Supp.3d 784, 787 (W.D. Mo. 2019) (citing examples of terminal metastatic cancer and a severe
and untreatable spinal degenerative disease that required the permanent use of a full-torso brace).
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
On the other hand, “[c]hronic conditions that can be managed in prison are not a sufficient basis
for compassionate release.” See United States v. Johnson, No. 3:19-cr-05022, 2024 WL 4535622,
at *3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2024) (compassionate release denied where inmate’s medical conditions
included 	seizures, 	cardiac arrest, 	asthma, 	chronic back 	pain, 	deep 	vein 	thrombosis, 	and
hyperlipidemia) (quoting United States v. Ayon-Nunez, No. 1:16-CR-00130-DAD, 2020 WL
704785, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020).
Here, Paxton’s medical records from the BOP show assessment and treatment of numerous
medical conditions, including anxiety disorder, chronic kidney disease, essential (primary)
hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, major depressive disorder -
recurrent, pain in specified joint, rotator cuff tear or rupture of his shoulder, sleep apnea, PTSD,
presbyopia, chronic periodontitis, and injury of the lower back. 	(ECF No. 58-2 at 4, 13). 	The
Government characterizes most of these conditions as minor, notes that all are treatable, and that
none are sufficiently “serious” as would warrant compassionate release under applicable law. The
undersigned agrees. 	The BOP medical records span 434 pages and establish that Paxton has
received treatment for each of his medical conditions while incarcerated in the BOP. He receives
medication for his hypertension, his mental health, his pain, and for his GERD. (Id. at 4). He was
provided a CPAP machine and equipment on January 22, 2025, for his sleep apnea. 	(Id. at 2).
Based on a review of the BOP medical records, and contrary to Paxton’s assertion that he needs
specialized care not being provided by the BOP, his medical conditions are being adequately
managed by the BOP. See United States v. McMillan, Cr. 10—50054, 2023 WL 4534883, at *3
(D.S.D. July 13, 2023) (defendant’s variety of medical conditions appeared to be adequately
managed while incarcerated, thus his medical conditions were neither an extraordinary nor
compelling reason to justify compassionate release).
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
The focus of Paxton’s initial pro se Motion for Compassionate Release, filed on May 28,
2024, was that the combination of conditions he suffers from “would be extremely serious if he
were [to] contract COVID-19.” (ECF No. 39 at 1). He cites numerous cases, all of which were
decided during 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in support of his claim. In his
Supplemental Motion filed by appointed counsel on January 28, 2025, he now emphasizes his
chronic kidney disease as “an example of a serious medical condition presenting extraordinary and
compelling reasons for a sentence reduction,” and he asserts that without adequate medical care,
his kidney disease will get progressively worse. (ECF No. 52 at 5-6).
It is undisputed that Paxton has been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, stage 3a.
(ECF No. 58-2 at 2, 25, 35, 145, 148, 151). But a report dated January 22, 2025, indicates Paxton’s
kidney disease is in remission. (Id. at 4, 14, 112). Clinical encounter notes on that date show that
Paxton’s GFR (glomerular filtration rate) category is G2. 	(Id. at 2). 	Chronic kidney disease is
classified into six categories based upon a patient’s GFR: G1 to G5, with G3 subdivided into 3a
and 3b.4 Paxton’s category, G2, indicates that his kidney functions are mildly decreased. 	The
encounter notes also show that Paxton’s ACR (albumin-to-creatinine ration) is A1, which indicates
normal to mildly increased albuminuria. (Id.). These encounter notes also reflect that the risk of
progression of Paxton’s kidney disease is low, and only annual monitoring is recommended. (Id.).
Paxton asserts that his kidney disease will only progressively get worse, but the BOP medical
records show that his kidney disease has improved and is now in remission.
Further, Paxton fails to meet the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard because
he has not established that any of his serious medical conditions substantially diminish his ability
4 See https://www.kidney.org/how-to-classify-ckd (last accessed on April 11, 2025) and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535404/ (last accessed on April 11, 2025).
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
to provide self-care with the environment of a correctional facility and from which he is not
expected to recover. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B). No physical or work restrictions have been
placed on Paxton at the BOP, and his only limitations are to be assigned to a lower bunk and use
of a CPAP machine for his sleep apnea. (ECF No. 58-2 at 16). There simply is no showing that
Paxton is suffering from a serious medical condition that requires long-term or specialized care
that is not being adequately provided for by the BOP. To the contrary, the medical records show
that Paxton is receiving adequate treatment for each of his medical conditions, and that he is not
presently at risk of serious deterioration in health, or death, from any of them. 	Accordingly,
Paxton’s medical conditions do not establish an “extraordinary and compelling reason” warranting
compassionate release under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C).
B. 	Paxton’s Family Circumstance
Next, Paxton alleges his mother is elderly, disabled and in need of a caretaker, which he
asserts presents an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(b)(3)(C). He fails, however, to substantiate this with any evidence.
No evidence of his mother’s current condition has been presented, making it impossible
for the Court to determine the extent of his mother’s ability to care for herself and if she is truly
incapacitated to the degree required for sentencing relief. 	Courts have held that proving
“incapacitation” is a “high bar” to clear. See e.g. United States v. Guest, No. ELH-16-0499, 2022
WL 2104492, at *13 (D. Md. June 9, 2022). And courts do not grant release when a prisoner fails
to allege or provide proof that the parent or family member the prisoner seeks to care for is truly
incapacitated. See United States v. Thompson, No. 05-144 (DWF/JSM), 2024 WL 5137182, at *2
(D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2024) (defendant failed to establish sister was incapable of self-care or that he
was only available caretaker); United States v. Bass, No.4:19-CR-35 RLW, 2024 WL 3552030, at
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
*3 (E.D. Mo. July 26, 2024) (finding defendant failed to present evidence that his father was
incapacitated); United States v. Sanders, No. JKB-20-0168, 2024 WL 1014095, at *2 (D. Md. Mar.
8, 2024) (denying compassionate release where defendant showed that his child’s grandfather was
ill, but did not show that the grandfather was incapacitated or that the defendant was the only
person available to care for the child).
Notably, Paxton’s initial pro se Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 39) makes
no mention of needing to care for his mother. His Proposed Release Plan identifies his mother as
a source of community support to assist with his medical needs. (ECF No. 40-1 at 5). Additionally,
Paxton’s Request for Administrative Remedy seeking compassionate release or a sentence
reduction, and the Warden’s denial of that Request, reflects that Paxton sought compassionate
release because of his own medical conditions, not the need to care for an incapacitated elderly
parent. 	(ECF No. 40-4 at 2). 	The need to “assist in the care of his disabled mother” was first
mentioned in his Supplemental Motion. (ECF No. 52 at 1). No allegations or proof are offered to
explain the nature of his mother’s disability or incapacity, only the statement that his mother resides
in Bald Knob, Arkansas, and “currently relies on the assistance of neighbors and church members
to assist her with daily tasks and transportation to doctor’s appointments.” 	(Id. at 9). 	This is
insufficient to support a conclusion that Paxton’s mother is incapacitated and that he would be the
only available caregiver for her, as required by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C).
Paxton’s desire to care for his elderly mother is commendable, but his family circumstances
do not rise to the level of being extraordinary and compelling. See e.g. United States v. Ingram,
2019 WL 3162305 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2019) (“Many, if not all inmates, have aging and sick
parents. Such circumstance is not extraordinary.”). Paxton’s family circumstances do not warrant
compassionate release or a reduction of sentence.
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
C. 	Paxton’s Rehabilitation While in the BOP
Paxton also alleges that he has “done classes” while in the BOP, and he provided a list of
the classes he has completed – consisting of a dozen classes taken between January and April 2024.
(ECF Nos. 39, 40, 40-3). 	In his Supplemental Motion, he states that “[h]e has not had any
disciplinary violations during his incarceration and no longer poses a danger to the public.” (ECF
No. 52 at 1). He later adds that “through BOP programming, he no longer presents a danger to the
community.” (Id. at 7).
Commendable as it may be, rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling
reason to support compassionate release or a sentence reduction. 	The United States Sentencing
Commission, in promulgating general policy statements regarding the sentencing modification
provisions of the First Step Act, was directed to “describe what should be considered extraordinary
and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of
specific examples.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). The statute specifically provides that “[r]ehabilitation of
the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” 	Id.
“Prisoners are supposed to follow the rules, take classes, work at a job, and otherwise attempt to
improve themselves. That a prisoner does so means that he has met baseline expectations, not that
he has done something extraordinary.” United States v. Logan, 532 F.Supp.3d 725, 735 (D. Minn.
2021) (emphasis in original).
Paxton’s laudable efforts to rehabilitate himself, either alone, or in combination with the
other grounds he asserts, do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to support a
reduction of sentence.
D. 	Analysis of the § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors
As Paxton has failed to establish that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
compassionate release or a sentence reduction, the Court need not take the next step to consider
the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to see if they support a sentence
modification. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). If it did, however, an examination of those sentencing
factors does not support compassionate release or a sentence reduction in this case.
When imposing the sentence of 188 months imprisonment, at the low end of the advisory
Guidelines range, the Court noted that the sentence was imposed to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense. (ECF No.
38 at 2). The Court found no reason to depart from the Guidelines range, and it found that no §
3553(a) factors or other reasons supported granting a downward variance. (Id. at 2-3). As it relates
to Paxton’s current Motion for Issuance of an Order Stating Defendant’s Criminal History Point
Reduction Pursuant to Amendment 821 (ECF No. 49), the Court specifically noted that “pursuant
to Amendment 821 and USSG § 4A1.1(e) (status points), which will be effective on November 1,
2023, and will be retroactive, the defendant would qualify for a 1-point reduction in his criminal
history category5, resulting in 23 points, or a criminal history category of VI.” (Id. at 4). Thus,
the Court has already acknowledged the retroactive effect of Amendment 821 on status points and
has stated that Amendment 821 results in a criminal history score of 23 for Paxton. For this reason,
it is RECOMMENDED that Paxton’s Motion pursuant to Amendment 821 (ECF No. 49) be
DENIED as moot.6
The 	PSR 	found 	Paxton 	responsible 	for 	trafficking 	482.621 	grams 	of 	actual
5 The word “category” here appears to be a clerical error, as it appears certain that the Court was
referring to Paxton’s criminal history score in points and not his criminal history category, which
the Court noted would stay at category VI even after the one-point reduction to 23.
6 In Paxton’s other case before the Court, Case No. 6:22-cr-60032-SOH-MEF-1, he attached an
exhibit to his Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence filed on August 12, 2024, and the
exhibit, appearing to be a BOP form entitled “Male Custody Classification Form,” correctly
reflects Paxton’s criminal history score as 23. (ECF No. 21-1).
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
methamphetamine. (ECF No. 32, ¶¶ 30, 37). This is a large quantity of methamphetamine (over
17 ounces), but other information in the PSR reflects that at one point Paxton told a confidential
source he had 26 kilograms of methamphetamine stored at his office in North Little Rock. (Id., ¶
21). The PSR also reflects Paxton’s active involvement in drug trafficking activities, noting that
he was involved in six deliveries of methamphetamine during the summer of 2021, with two of
those deliveries (including Count Six, the offense of conviction) involving 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine. Following a search of his residence and his arrest, Paxton gave a post-Miranda
interview during which he admitted to attempting to “wash away” methamphetamine down the
bathtub and down the toilet. 	(Id., ¶ 29). 	He stated there had been “big chunks” of
methamphetamine in three plastic tubs, but he was unsure how much methamphetamine there was.
(Id.). 	He also admitted to distributing methamphetamine to people in Little Rock, North Little
Rock, Benton, and Hot Springs, Arkansas. (Id.). Paxton has been in federal custody since March
9, 2022 (Id. at 1), so by April 2025 he has now served approximately 36 months of his 188-month
sentence, only about 20% of his sentence. 	Imposing a lesser sentence would depreciate the
perceived seriousness of Paxton’s crime and seriously undermine respect for the law and any
deterrent effect of the sentence.
Further, as the Court noted in its Statement of Reasons, Paxton is a career offender. (ECF
No. 38 at 4). He was under two prior criminal justice sentences when he committed the offenses
charged in this case. (ECF No. 32, ¶ 77). His criminal history spans back to 1997, and it includes
a variety of criminal offenses, including a hot check offense, numerous traffic violations, numerous
failures to appear, several theft offenses, several forgery offenses, several revocations of probation,
aggravated assault on a family member, domestic battering, and at least four prior convictions for
drug related offenses. (Id., ¶¶ 53-75). The circumstances of the instant offense and his criminal
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
history make clear that Paxton had very little, if any, respect for the law. 	While Paxton has
commendably attended some classes while incarcerated in the BOP, the undersigned is not
convinced that such efforts at rehabilitation have significantly reduced his risk of recidivism or
danger to the public.
Accordingly, a consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) does
not support either compassionate release or a reduction in sentence.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Paxton’s pro se Motion for
Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and the First Step Act (ECF No. 39), his pro
se Motion for Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (ECF No. 40), his Motion for
Issuance of an Order Stating Defendant’s Criminal History Point Reduction Pursuant to
Amendment 821 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (ECF No. 49), and his Supplemental
Motion for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to Section 603 of the First Step Act of 2018 and 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (ECF No. 52) be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
written objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties
are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by
the district court.
DATED this 17th day of April 2025.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:22-cr-60003-JTS Document 59 Filed 04/17/25 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>