USA v. Lennox

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:21-cr-05027-MDH- 1
)
ROBERT LENNOX, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se motion requesting compassionate release or, in the
alternative, “a trial by jury.”. (Doc. 107). Defendant is serving a 78-month term of imprisonment
after pleading guilty to one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography. Defendant
moves for a reduction in sentence due to his age, medical conditions, his mother’s age and health,
and rehabilitation. Defendant first filed a motion to have his sentence reduced pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) in May of 2025, asserting the same reasons. (Doc. 98). The Court denied
that motion on June 2, 2025, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 99). On
08/18/2025 Defendant filed another Motion for Compassionate Release. (Doc. 102). The Court
again denied that motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 106). Now,
Defendant brings a third motion for compassionate release. (Doc. 107). The Government argues
the motion should be denied because innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel are not
enumerated reasons under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and he is precluded from his attacking his conviction
under 18 U.S.C. §3582.
A district court cannot grant a § 3582(c)(1)(A) reduction unless the defendant meets three
conditions: (1) an extraordinary and compelling reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduction would be
Case 3:21-cr-05027-MDH Document 111 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, including that the defendant is not a danger to another person
or the community; (3) and the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of compassionate release. See
United States v. Crandall, 25 F.4th 582, 583 (8th Cir. 2022).
Lennox seeks compassionate release by claiming innocence and ineffective assistance of
counsel. (Doc. 107.) The Government argues these are not enumerated reasons under U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13 and the Court agrees. Lennox’s arguments are an attempt to challenge his conviction after
his guilty plea, and these arguments are not proper for a motion for sentence reduction under §
3582(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Fine, 982 F.3d 1117, 1118 (8th Cir. 2020) (“a post-judgment
motion that fits the description of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence should be
treated as a § 2255 motion”). “A [defendant] cannot avoid the restrictions of the post-conviction
relief statute by resorting to a request for compassionate release instead.” United States v. Crandall,
25 F.4th 582, 586 (8th Cir. 2022).
Because challenging a conviction does not fall under an enumerated policy statement
governing motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), Lennox has failed to demonstrate an
extraordinary and compelling reason and the Motion for Compassionate Release is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in the Government’s opposition (Doc. 110), the Court
hereby DENIES Defendant’s pro se motion requesting compassionate release.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2026 	/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:21-cr-05027-MDH Document 111 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2