USA v. Rodenbeek

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 16-10138-JWB
MICHAEL RODENBEEK,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion for compassionate release. (Doc.
62.) The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 64, 65.) The motion is
DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
I. 	Background
On March 13, 2017, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a),
production of child pornography. 	According to the plea agreement, Defendant produced child
pornography on two separate occasions with two minor victims aged nine and ten. (Doc. 25.) A
presentence report was prepared and calculated the sentencing guidelines range at 360 months to
life. (Doc. 35 at 19.) Although Defendant initially objected to certain findings in the report, he
later withdrew his objections and the presentence report was adopted by the court. (Docs. 48, 53.)
Defendant was sentenced to 240 months after the sentencing judge varied downward due to
Defendant’s age. (Doc. 53 at 3.)
Defendant moves for compassionate release on the basis that he is the only caregiver for
his ailing father and because of his rehabilitation efforts. The government opposes the motion.
II. 	Standard
Case 6:16-cr-10138-JWB Document 66 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 4

2
“Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to modify a term of imprisonment once
it has been imposed, but [that] rule of finality is subject to a few narrow exceptions.” United States
v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1041 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522,
526 (2011)). Defendant moves for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Under that statute,
a sentence reduction is allowed when “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction . . . .” 	Id. 	Prior to 2018, that section only authorized the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons to move for a reduction. Id. The First Step Act changed this to allow a defendant to file
his own motion for reduction after he “has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a
failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the
receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier.” United
States v. Mata-Soto, 861 F. App'x 251, 253 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
Exhaustion is mandatory. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1030–31 (10th Cir. 2021).
Here, Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies. (Doc. 62-1.)
The Tenth Circuit has endorsed a three-step test for district courts to use in deciding
motions filed under § 3582(c)(1)(A). McGee, 992 F.3d at 1042. Under that test, the court may
reduce a sentence if Defendant has administratively exhausted his claim and three other
requirements are met: (1) “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warrant a reduction; (2) the
“reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;”
and (3) the reduction is consistent with any applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.
A court may deny the motion when any of the three requirements is lacking and the court need not
address the other requirements. 	Id. at 1043. 	But all requirements must be addressed when the
court grants a motion for release under the statute. Id. Defendant bears the burden of establishing
Case 6:16-cr-10138-JWB Document 66 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 4

3
that compassionate release is warranted under the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Moreno, 519
F. Supp. 3d 937, 941 (D. Kan. 2021).
III. 	Analysis
Defendant asserts that he has established extraordinary circumstances because he is the
only caregiver available to care for his father who suffers from either dementia or Alzheimer’s.
(Doc. 62 at 2.) While family circumstances can support a finding of extraordinary circumstances
supporting compassionate release, Defendant has failed to do so here. Under the policy statement,
Defendant must show “incapacitation of the defendant's parent when the defendant would be the
only available caregiver for the parent.” 	U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C). 	Defendant has failed to
show that his father is incapacitated and that he is the only available caregiver.
Defendant states that his father’s memory is on constant decline and he needs a caregiver.
Defendant, however, fails to provide any evidence that his father is incapacitated to the extent that
a fulltime caregiver is needed. Notably, Defendant states that his father continues to drive himself.
(Doc. 62 at 2–3.) 	Further, Defendant fails to establish that he is the only available caregiver.
Defendant’s motion discusses other family members who visit his father and, as pointed out by the
government, the presentence report identifies several family members in the area. (Doc. 64 at 9–
10.) Therefore, the court finds that Defendant has not met his burden to show that his father is
incapacitated and that he is the only available caregiver. See United States v. Lopez, 846 F. App'x
733, 735 (10th Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of motion for compassionate release when the
defendant did not make a sufficient showing on his claim.)
Defendant also asserts that he has been rehabilitated and cites to various activities that he
has done while incarcerated. While these behaviors are commendable, they do not independently
Case 6:16-cr-10138-JWB Document 66 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 4

4
create an extraordinary or compelling reason for release. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d) (“rehabilitation of
the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason.”).
Because Defendant has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary or compelling reason for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), his motion for sentence reduction must be
denied. 	McGee, 992 F.3d at 1043. 	Although the court need not address the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors given this decision, the court would further find that the sentencing factors do
not weigh in favor of a sentence reduction for the reasons set forth by the sentencing court at
sentencing and for the reasons set forth by the government. The court notes that Defendant already
received a significant variance at sentencing based on his age. 	Defendant committed egregious
crimes on two different minor victims and has not even served half of his sentence. Considering
all of the arguments and circumstances presented by Defendant, the court concludes that the
sentence of 240 months continues to be required to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.
IV. 	Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for compassionate release (Doc. 62) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 28th day of January 2026.
__ s/ John Broomes__________
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:16-cr-10138-JWB Document 66 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 4