USA v. Gaby

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 2:19-cr-20039
CECIL W. GABY 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed on October 27, 2025, by the
Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 71). Defendant has filed objections. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2019, Defendant Cecil W. Gaby waived indictment and consented to
prosecution by Information. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Defendant, a former doctor, was charged with one
count of Distributing a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and §
841(b)(1)(C), and 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04. (ECF No. 2). On the same date, and pursuant to a written
Plea Agreement (ECF No. 5), Defendant pled guilty as charged in the Information. (ECF No. 4).
On May 27, 2021, the Court1 sentenced Defendant to 120 total months of imprisonment followed
by 3 total years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $100 special assessment. 	(ECF
No. 24).
On August 19, 2024, Defendant, acting pro se, filed a motion requesting compassionate
release based on his medical condition and need for immediate treatment. 	(ECF No. 52).
Defendant explains that he was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer and that he suffers from
1 The Honorable P. K. Holmes III presided over this case at the time.
Case 2:19-cr-20039-SOH Document 73 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
chronic heart disease, medical conditions due to a stroke, and near-legal deafness. 	Defendant
further explains that he has been transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas,
for cancer treatment, but that the treatment he needs is beyond the measures the BOP is willing or
able to provide. 	Defendant requests that he be released to receive private medical care at the
Cancer Center in Spokane, Washington.
On December 26, 2024, Defendant filed a supplemental motion through his court-
appointed counsel. (ECF No. 58). In his supplemental motion, Defendant requests the reduction
of his sentence pursuant to Section 603 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) because of his age2 and serious medical conditions. On August 1, 2025,
the government filed a response in opposition to both of Defendant’s motions. (ECF No. 69). The
government argues that the BOP medical facility to which Defendant was transferred has
successfully treated his cancer, which is now in remission. The government also asserts that the
BOP medical facility is actively treating Defendant’s preexisting heart conditions.
On October 27, 2025, Judge Ford conducted a review of Defendant’s motions and
recommends that both motions be denied. (ECF No. 71). Specifically, Judge Ford found that: (1)
Defendant’s request for compassionate release sufficiently triggered and satisfied the 30-day
exhaustion period under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) Defendant does not have an “extraordinary
or compelling reason” for sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B) because
Defendant’s health records reflect that his cancer is in remission and that he can provide self-care;
and (3) Defendant’s cancer does not qualify as a medical condition requiring long-term or
specialized medical care under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) because his cancer went into remission
under the care of BOP and because Defendant’s history of heart disease is not an “extraordinary
2 Defendant is currently 75 years old. See Find an inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
(last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
Case 2:19-cr-20039-SOH Document 73 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
or compelling” reason warranting early release. 	On November 7, 2025, Defendant filed timely
objections through his counsel. (ECF No. 72).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear pre- and post-trial matters and to
submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of receipt of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, “a
party 	may 	serve 	and 	file 	specific 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord Local Rule 72.1(VII)(C). After conducting
an appropriate review of the report and recommendation, the Court may then “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . . or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“[T]he specific standard of review depends, in the first instance, upon whether or not a
party has objected to portions of the report and recommendation.” 	Anderson v. Evangelical
Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1015 (N.D. Iowa 2018). 	Generally,
“objections must be timely and specific” to trigger de novo review. 	Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d
356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990). “When conducting a de novo review, the district court makes its own
determinations of disputed issues and does not decide whether the magistrate’s proposed findings
are clearly erroneous.” Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
Alternatively, if the party does not timely and specifically object to the report and recommendation,
the Court reviews that report and recommendation for clear error. See Raper v. Maxwell, No. 4:21-
cv-4067, 2022 WL 1978690, at *2 (W.D. Ark. June 6, 2022); see also Jackson v. Payne, No. 6:19-
cv-6049, 2022 WL 1721457, at *11 (W.D. Ark. May 27, 2022) (reviewing objections that were not
specific under the clear error standard).
Case 2:19-cr-20039-SOH Document 73 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The Court finds that Defendant’s objections are not specific enough to trigger de novo
review. Defendant acknowledges that his medical conditions have improved and that his cancer
is in remission but reasserts that he would receive more advanced oncologic care in the private
sector. (ECF No. 72, at 2). Defendant also reasserts that he has an extensive medical history and
that his health will continue to decline due to his age. Finally, Defendant reasserts that his release
will not undermine the goal of general deterrence or subject the public to any risk due to his age
and to the fact that he has surrendered his medical license. (ECF No. 72, at 3). Since Judge Ford
has already considered and rejected these arguments in his Report and Recommendation, the Court
reviews Judge Ford’s findings and recommendations for clear error. 	See Jackson, 2022 WL
1721457, at *11 (reviewing a report and recommendation for clear error when a petitioner’s
objections repeated contentions that the magistrate judge had already considered). 	Upon review,
the Court sees no clear error with respect to Judge Ford’s recommendations and will adopt them.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 71) should
be and hereby is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motions to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 52 & 58) are
hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Case 2:19-cr-20039-SOH Document 73 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>