USA v. Daugherty

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
RICHARD E. DAUGHERTI',
Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cr-26
Judge Walter H. Rice
DECISIONAND ENTRY OVERRULINGMOTION FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE OF DEFENDANT RICHARD DAUGHERTY
(DOC. #57) AND OVERRULING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY(DOC. #58)
Before the Court is the Motion for Compassionate Release of Pro Se
Defendant Richard E. Daugherty (Doc. #57), and Defendant's Motion for Discovery.
(Doc. #58). For the reasons set forth below, the Compassionate Release Motion is
OVERRULED and the Discovery Motion is OVERRULED AS MOOT.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
On December 20, 2017,, Defendant was convicted of Possessing with Intent
to Distribute in Excess of 400 grams of a mixture containing Fentanyl, and
Possessing with Intent to Distribute 100 grams or less of Heroin (Count One) and
Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime (Count Two)
(Judgment, Doc. #43, PAGEID 147-48, amended atDoc. #46, PAGEID 171-73),
citing 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1)(A), 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iv), (b)(1)(B)(i)).
Defendant was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment on Count One and 60
Case: 3:17-cr-00026-WHR Doc #: 59 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

months on Count Two, to be served consecutively. {Id. at PAGEID 148). On April
6, 2018, after confirming that Defendant's wife suffers from congestive heart
failure, the Court reduced the sentence on Count One to 60 months, for an
aggregate sentence of 120 months. (Decision and Entry, Doc. #48, PAGEID 185-
86). Defendant is 41 years old with a present release date of August 18, 2027 1
Defendant argues that he is being incarcerated as a "political prisoner of
war" and has "been denied medical treatment for the last 14 months [and has]
been wrongfully detained in the SHU [(Special Housing Unit)] for the last 10
months. " (Doc. #57, PAGEID 258). He asserts that he has "fulfilled all of my
administrative remedy processes. " (Id. ).2
The matter is now ripe for decision.
II. Legal Standards
A district court may, in certain limited circumstances, grant "compassionate
release" and modify a term of imprisonment after it has been imposed:
[T]he court ... may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may
impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without
conditions that does not exceed the unsen/ed portion of the original
term of imprisonment), (1) after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, (2) if it finds that
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction . . . (3) and that such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.3
1 https://www. bop. gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed Feb. 12, 2026).
2 The Court has read with great attention the remainderof Defendant's Compassionate Release
Motion (Doc. #57, PAGEID 257-64), and, respectfully, has been unable to discern a coherent
argument. Nonetheless, the topics discussed therein (id. } have no bearing on whether
compassionate release is warranted under 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Case: 3:17-cr-00026-WHR Doc #: 59 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (numeration added). Defendants seeking
compassionate release may file a motion with the district court only after they
submit a request to his or her warden to move for compassionate relief on their
behalf and either (a) the warden denies the request, or (b) the warden does not
respond within thirty days from the submission of the request. Id. Failure to
comply with the exhaustion strictures set forth in the statute deprives a court of
authority to entertain the petition. See United States v. Alam, 960 F. 3d 831, 834
(6th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (First Step Act's
exhaustion requirement is, in essence, a "mandatory claim-processing rule[]"
that, when properly invoked, courts must enforce by dismissing the motion).
If the district court adjudges that a defendant has not met one of the
elements, then it may overrule a motion for compassionate release without
discussing any of the other elements. United States v. Elias, 984 F. 3d 516, 519
(6th Cir. 2021). Further, relief under the statute is wholly discretionary; even if a
defendant meets all three elements of the statute, the Court may, but need not,
order compassionate release. United States v. Jones, 980 F. 3d 1098, 1106 (6th Cir
2020).
III. Analysis
At the outset, the Court notes that Defendant has set forth no evidence that
Defendant made a request to his warden that he or she move for compassionate
relief on Defendant's behalf. Absent such a request. Defendant may not proceed,
and his Motion must be dismissed for that reason alone. 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A);
Case: 3:17-cr-00026-WHR Doc #: 59 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

see alsoAlam, 960 F. 3d at 833 ("Even though this exhaustion requirement does
not implicate our subject-matter jurisdiction, it remains a mandatory condition. ").
However, even assuming that the Court may entertain the Motion,
Defendant is still not entitled to relief. While the Court may consider other
circumstances beyond those listed in United States Sentencing Guideline
("Guideline") § 1B1. 13 as extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, that
Guideline section is still informative as to what constitutes such a reason. Jones,
980 F. Sdat 1110-11 (in light of the First Step Act of 2019, "we weave together
three compatible aspirations: preserving as much of § 181. 13 that can be saved,
adhering to Congress's intent, and respecting the Sentencing Commission's
thoughtful authorship of § 1B1. 13's commentary"). The reasons set forth are, in
essence and in no particular order: (a) old age; (b) terminal illness; (c) serious
physical or mental illness for which he cannot receive adequate care in the prison;
(d) being sole caregiver for an immediate family member; (e) sexual abuse; or (f)
suffering serious bodily injury committed by an individual with custody or control
over Defendant. U. S. SENT'G GUIDELINE § 1B1. 13(b)(1-4).
From the Court's most reasonable and liberal reading of the Compassionate
Release Motion, Defendant appears to be claiming that the BOP, at the behest of
other federal agencies, is retaliating against Defendant due to his discovering and
intending to expose a psyop by the federal government against the American
people. (Doc. #57, PAGEID 257-59, 261). However, the only cogent claim of
retaliation in the Compassionate Release Motion is Defendant's allegation that he
Case: 3:17-cr-00026-WHR Doc #: 59 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

was placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") in retaliation for his attempts at
exposing the psyop. [Id. at PAGEID 257). However, Defendant has not identified
any caselaw, and the Court is unaware of any, supporting the premise that
placement in solitary confinement or other special housing is, by itself, an
extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Moreover,
Defendant concedes that his time in federal custody has been marked by
numerous disciplinary infractions. (Doc. #57, PAGEID 258). Thus, the Court
cannot conclude that Defendant's restrictive placement was even improper, much
less grounds for release. See United States v. Gordon. No. 23-3188, 2004 WL
1005772, *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024), cert. denied ^^ S. Ct. 1458 (Mem. ) (Mar. 24,
2025) (affirming district court's conclusion that being held in solitary confinement
is not an extraordinary and compelling reason when the defendant's own
behavior was the impetus for placement).
Finally, Defendant does not claim that any of the 1 8 U. S. C. § 3553(a) factors
applies in favor of compassionate release. Nor could he reasonably so argue. By
Defendant's own admission, he endangered the Greater Dayton community by
attempting to traffic more than one-half of one kilogram combined of heroin and
fentanyl, and possessing three loaded pistols in furtherance thereof. (Stmt. Of
Facts, Doc. #25, PAGEID 55-56). Also, again by his own admission (Doc. #57,
PAGEID 257, Defendant has had significant behavioral issues while incarcerated.
Defendant was already receiving a below-Guideline range sentence, and further
downward departure would not be justified by "the nature and circumstances of
Case: 3:17-cr-00026-WHR Doc #: 59 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

the offense and the history and characteristics of the [D]efendant[. ]" 18 U. S. C. §
3553(a)(1).
Having failed to meet any of the three elements for compassionate release,
Defendant's Compassionate Release Motion must be overruled irrespective of any
consideration of the 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a) factors. Because none of the materials
sought by Defendant in his Discovery Motion (Doc . #58, PAGEID 266) would cause
the Court to alter its conclusion, that latter Motion is overruled for mootness.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above. Defendant's Compassionate Release
Motion (Doc. #57) is OVERRULED, and his Discovery Motion (Doc. #58) is
OVERRULED AS MOOT.
The captioned case remains terminated upon the docket records of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at
Dayton.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 12, 2026
if 	d'
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
Case: 3:17-cr-00026-WHR Doc #: 59 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>