USA v. Rodgers et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
(2) CLINT TRAVIS RODGERS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:18-cr-04117-RK
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Clint Rodgers’ second motion for compassionate release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. Amendment 821. (Doc. 149.) This motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 151,
155, 156.) After careful consideration and complete review of the motion on the merits, the Court
ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for compassionate release and to reduce sentence is DENIED.
Background
On October 12, 2021, Mr. Rodgers pleaded guilty to one count of criminal infringement of
copyright in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(3) and 17 U.S.C. § 506, as charged in a Substitute
Information. 	(See Docs. 78, 79, 80.) 	On the same day, Mr. Rodgers’ wife and co-defendant,
Tabitha Rodgers, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal copyright infringement for profit in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) and 17 U.S.C. § 506. (See Docs. 74, 75.) Both defendants pleaded
guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Epps, and the Court accepted each guilty plea upon Judge
Epps’ Report and Recommendations to do so. (Docs. 76, 81, 82, 83.)
The Court sentenced both defendants on February 8, 2023. 	The Court sentenced Mrs.
Rodgers to a term of 48 months’ imprisonment, (Docs. 113, 115), and Mr. Rodgers to a term of 12
months’ imprisonment, (Docs. 112, 123). The Court stayed imposition of Mr. Rodgers’ sentence
until after the release of Mrs. Rodgers. 	(Doc. 123.) Accordingly, on April 17, 2025, after Mrs.
Rodgers had been released to home confinement, the Court ordered that Mr. Rodgers self-surrender
to begin serving his 12-month sentence on August 21, 2025. (Doc. 134.)1
1 It appears that Mr. Rodgers’ release date is approximately July 14, 2026.
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 13

2
Discussion
I. 	Compassionate Release
First, Mr. Rodgers seeks compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).
Defendant 	argues 	that 	he 	demonstrates 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	circumstances 	for
compassionate release including his family circumstances and medical conditions, and that the
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh in favor of compassionate release.
Defendant has not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for reduced sentence due
to family circumstances. He generally argues that his children are traumatized and recovering after
their mother’s release to home confinement from incarceration, that the family needs to stay
together to seek counseling, and that his son was in a motorcycle accident and Defendant would
be needed to help take care of him. 	Considering U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3), which defines
extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons 	for 	compassionate 	release 	as 	to 	certain 	family
circumstances, Defendant has not shown that his children are incapable of self-care due to a
medical condition and Defendant fails to establish that he is the only caregiver available to provide
care and assistance to his children. In fact, Defendant concedes that the children’s mother, Mrs.
Rodgers, was recently released from incarceration and he has provided no reason why she is unable
to provide for the children.
Neither has Defendant shown that his various medical conditions demonstrate an
extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Despite providing a list of various
conditions and symptoms, Defendant has not shown that he cannot provide self-care within a BOP
facility; nor has Defendant shown that he requires long-term or specialized care that is not provided
by the BOP, or that the BOP is unable to effectively manage his various conditions and symptoms.
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B) and (C); United States v. Ayon-Nunez, No. 1:16-cr-00130-DAD,
2020 WL 704785, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020) (“Chronic conditions that can be managed in
prison are not a sufficient basis for compassionate release.”).2
2 The Court notes that at the time of sentencing, Defendant reported being in “excellent physical
health with no medical problems,” that he “does not take any daily medication,” and that he “is not under
a physician’s care.” (Doc. 91 at 10 (PSR).) The first indication regarding Defendant’s medical concerns
and symptoms arose in Defendant’s motion to extend his surrender date, (Doc. 137)—filed one month
before the August 21, 2025 self-surrender date ordered by the Court, (Doc. 134). 	Defendant sought to
extend his reporting date by two months, which he represented “will allow him to not have delay in
treatment . . . and have his medical issues treated.” (Doc. 141 at 3.) Defendant argued (without any support)
that “[w]hatever BOP prison doctor examines Mr. Rodgers, he will not be able to treat his issues,” but will
require referral to an outside specialist. (Id.) Defendant now seeks compassionate release based on many
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 13

3
Before proceeding further, the Court notes that in Defendant’s brief, Counsel W. Tom
Norrid cites various cases for each medical condition or symptom Defendant alleges suggesting
that “[n]umerous courts have granted compassionate release to defendants who suffer from” the
same medical condition or symptoms as Defendant. The Court finds the authority cited by Mr.
Norrid to be inaccurate and misleading to the Court. The cases cited by Mr. Norrid are simply
factually and legally inapposite or are easily distinguishable on their face. The cited cases include:
(1) cases in which the district court actually denied compassionate release,3
(2) a case granting compassionate release based on the circumstances of the then-rampant
COVID-19 pandemic that was reversed on appeal,4
(3) cases in which the district court granted compassionate released based on non-medical
extraordinary and compelling reasons (including cases where the district court explicitly
considered—and rejected—a defendant’s argument for compassionate release based on asserted
medical conditions and symptoms),5 and
(4) cases in which the district court granted compassionate release based on medical
condition(s) and surrounding circumstances that are patently distinguishable from Defendant’s
asserted conditions, symptoms, and circumstances.6
of the same conditions and symptoms. He did not present the same argument in his compassionate release
motion that the BOP is “not . . . able to treat his issues” or that he has not received the treatment and medical
care necessary to manage his conditions and symptoms since beginning his term of incarceration.
3 United States v. McLean, No. 4:93-CR-22, 4:93-CR-47, 2022 WL 17253637, at *10-12 (E.D. Tex.
Nov. 28, 2022); United States v. Maxton, No. 13-cr-00411-PAB, 2020 WL 6565231, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Nov.
9, 2020).
4 United States v. DeFoggi, No. 8:13CR105, 2022 WL 1785435 (D. Neb. June 1, 2022), rev’d by
Case Nos. 22-2327 & 22-2397, 2023 WL 4112142 (8th Cir. June 22, 2023).
5 United States v. Blackbird, No. CR 05-174-GF-BMM-1, 2024 WL 3552446, at *2-3 (D. Mont.
July 26, 2024); United States v. Gallardo, No. 19-CR-2608-GPC, 2024 WL 4879493, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan.
8, 2024); United States v. Johnson, No. ELH-99-352, 2023 WL 7130950, at *18-20 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2023);
United States v. Woods, No. 3:12-40-JFA, 2023 WL 4768345, at *7 (D.S.C. July 26, 2023); United States
v. Hernandez, No. 5:15-cr-00033, 2022 WL 17905070, at *2-3 (S.D.W.V. Dec. 22, 2022); United States v.
Dunich-Kolb, No. 14-150 (KM), 2022 WL 580919, at *3-7 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2022); United States v. Johnson,
No. 05-cr-00167-WHA-5, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209833, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2021); United States
v. Ball, No. 06-cr-20465, 2021 WL 2351088, at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2021).
6 United States v. Carter, No. 13-CR-900 (JMF0, 14-CR-501 (JMF), 2025 WL 1865278, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2025); United States v. Manna, No. 88-00239 (RK), 2025 WL 1122286, at *4-6 (D.N.J.
Apr. 16, 2025); United States v. Gaddy, No. CR 488-032, 2025 WL 815632, at *3-6 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 13,
2025); United States v. Trucchio, No. 8:04-cr-348-CEH-TGW, 2024 WL 4869547, at *6-7 (M.D. Fla. Nov.
22, 2024); United States v. Cunningham, No. CR 12-60-GF-BMM, 2024 WL 50908, at *2-3 (D. Mont. Jan.
4, 2024); United States v. Stevens, No. 94-00002-KD, 2023 WL 3236892, at *3-17 (S.D. Ala. May 3, 2023);
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 13

4
The Court addresses each case cited by Mr. Norrid in more detail in Appendix A.
Suffice it to say, unlike the many compassionate release cases cited by Mr. Norrid,
Defendant is not elderly (he is approximately 52 years old); he has not been incarcerated for a
substantial length of time (whether as a substantial portion of his sentence of imprisonment or
otherwise); he does not suffer from either a terminal or life-threatening illness with a significantly
limited life expectancy; he does not suffer from any medical condition that he has shown the BOP
has not or reasonably will not be able to provide appropriate care and treatment; he does not suffer
from any ailment or medical condition that hinders his ability to care for himself on a daily basis;
and he is not incarcerated during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic or the surge of any similar
and widespread deadly strain of an infectious disease.
Collecting cases for the proposition that “[n]umerous courts have granted compassionate
release to defendants who suffer [insert Defendant’s same condition]” is at best unhelpful and at
worst misleading when presented as support for why the Court should consider any of Defendant’s
medical conditions or ailments to be an extraordinary and compelling circumstance to grant
compassionate release for all of the reasons explained above. 	If this is not an intentional
misrepresentation to the Court, the Court suspects that Mr. Norrid may have used some form of
artificial intelligence in drafting this brief without exercising even a minimal level of professional
diligence and employing reasonable safeguards. 	See Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., 2023
YEAR -END R EPORT ON THE F EDERAL J UDICIARY 5-6 (2023), https://www.supremecourt.gov/public
info/year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf [https://perma.cc/29AK-SBRU] (recognizing some of the
“great potential” of AI, along with its risks, and emphasizing that “any use of AI requires caution
and humility”). 	But even if not, the brief counsel submitted represents poor advocacy and
lawyering well below that which is expected of counsel appearing before the Court as an officer
of the Court.
United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, No. 19CR4809-AJB, 2022 WL 22894879, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27,
2022); United States v. Robinson, No. 89 CR 908-31, 2022 WL 4119800, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2022);
United States v. Howard, No. 1:04-CR-5234 AWI, 2022 WL 2670032, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2022);
DeFoggi, No. 8:13CR105, 2022 WL 1785435, at *6 (reversed on appeal); United States v. Figueroa, No.
07-CR-6219-FPG, 2022 WL 167536, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022); United States v. Hicks, No. 2:05-cr-
00040, 2022 WL 138690, at *3 (S.D.W.V. Jan. 14, 2022); United States v. Bronner, No. 3:19-cr-109-MMH-
JRK, 3:17-cr-063-MMH-JRK, 2021 WL 5798302, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2021); United States v. Jones,
No. 7:11CR00039-006, 2021 WL 3630459, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2021); United States v. Douglas, No.
10-171-4 (JDB), 2021 WL 214563, at *4-7 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2021).
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 13

5
Even if Defendant had demonstrated an extraordinary and compelling circumstance, the
Court finds that the § 3553 factors weigh against compassionate release. In particular, the Court
notes that, as the Government points out, Mr. Rodgers’ sentence was initially stayed for the
duration of his wife’s term of imprisonment to enable him to care for their children and that Mr.
Rodgers ultimately pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor offense despite initially being charged with
numerous felony offenses. The Court finds independently and separately that even if Defendant
had demonstrated an extraordinary and compelling circumstance, that the need to promote respect
for the law, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need to provide just punishment
for the offense heavily weigh against granting Defendant compassionate release.
Therefore, Defendant’s motion for compassionate release pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) is
DENIED after complete review of the motion on the merits.
II. 	Motion for Sentence Reduction (Amendment 821)
Defendant also seeks a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because he is
eligible for relief under Part B of U.S.S.G. Amendment 821 or the “zero point” amendment. In
2023, the Sentencing Commission added U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, which provides for a two-level
downward adjustment to a defendant’s offense level if the defendant received zero criminal history
points and meets other criteria.
While Defendant would be eligible for the two-point reduction under Amendment 821, he
is not eligible for a reduction in sentence because applying the two-point reduction to the offense
level would only reduce his guideline range but not his guideline sentence (12 months). At the
sentencing hearing, the Court calculated an offense level of 23 and a criminal history category I,
which called for an advisory guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment and a guideline
sentence of 12 months (due to the statutory maximum). Application of the two-point reduction
would result in a reduced guidelines range of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment but the guideline
sentence would remain at 12 months’ imprisonment.
“Where the statutorily authorized maximum sentence is less than the minimum of the
applicable guideline range, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline
sentence.” 	U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). 	Thus, regardless of the two-point reduction, the controlling
guideline sentence for Defendant was and remains 12 months’ imprisonment. Even with a reduced
guideline range from 46-57 months to 37-46 months, the 12-month sentence given would still be
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 13

6
the same. In other words, if the Court had calculated Defendants’ range to be the reduced 37-46
months, the Court would have still sentenced Defendant to 12 months’ imprisonment.7,8
Conclusion
That Defendant “simply wants the opportunity to be free,” (Doc. 156 at 4), as counsel
asserts in his reply brief, is not a reason to reduce the sentence in this case. After careful review
and consideration, the Court ORDERS that Defendant Clint Rodgers’ second motion to reduce
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (compassionate release) and § 3582(c)(2) (applying
Amendment 821’s “zero-point” offender reduction), (Doc. 149), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: February 10, 2026
7 Defendant also argues that there is an internal conflict within the PSR as to section 66 and section
67. These two sections are not conflicting but rather address two different concepts. Section 66 sets forth
the legally authorized term of probation for a misdemeanor offense which is “not more than 5 years” under
18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(2). Section 67 sets forth that a sentence of probation is not authorized in Zone C and
D of the Sentencing Guidelines Table under U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1. Because the sentencing guidelines are no
longer mandatory, the Court can order a probation sentence even if a defendant falls within Zone C or D.
8 Counsel’s argument that the Court is authorized to reduce Defendant’s sentence to time-served
because applying Amendment 821 reduces the “guideline range” without considering § 5G1.1(a) is simply
contrary to the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), which explains that in considering an amended
guideline range the Court should “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” Counsel’s
suggestion of a meaningful substantive difference between the terms “Guideline Range” and “Guideline
Sentence” in this context is simply without any basis in the applicable law. See also United States v. Trobee,
551 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2009) (“For those situations in which the mandatory minimum exceeds the
range for the entire offense level, the ‘guideline sentence’ would thus be the same as the ‘guideline range,’
even if it involves a ‘range’ of only one number.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v.
McFarlin, 535 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[B]ecause the statutory maximum was lower than the
guideline range, the sentencing guideline range became sixty months.”).
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 13

A-1
APPENDIX A
(1) Cited Cases Denying Motion for Compassionate Release
Case Name and Citation 	Defendant
Rodgers’ Cited
Medical
Condition
Actual Reason(s) for District Court’s Decision
United States v. McLean, No.
4:93-CR-22, 	4:93-CR-47,
2022 WL 17253637, at *10-12
(E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022)
Esophagitis 	finding 	no 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance 	for 	compassionate 	release 	despite
defendant’s diagnosis with malignant melanoma, in
addition to other conditions including hyperlipidemia
and esophageal reflux, finding that the “Defendant
did not provide any information or evidence that
would indicate his ability to provide self-care within
the correctional facility is substantially diminished”
and no evidence that the BOP did not have the
resources to treat Defendant’s condition (where his
medical records indicated that he was receiving
treatment)
**while 	McLean 	had 	been 	diagnosed 	with
esophageal reflux while in BOP custody, among
various other ailments and medical conditions, as the
district court explained, “[t]he thrust of Defendant’s
medical 	argument 	is 	that 	he 	is 	entitled 	to
compassionate 	release 	because 	he 	has 	been
diagnosed 	with 	malignant 	melanoma,” 	and
proceeded accordingly. 2022 WL 17253637, at *11.
United States v. Maxton, No.
13-cr-00411-PAB, 2020 WL
6565231, at *2-4 (D. Colo.
Nov. 9, 2020)
Umbilical
Hernia
finding 	no 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance 	for 	compassionate 	release 	for
defendant with “right inguinal and umbilical hernia
repair” among a myriad of other medical conditions
because there was no indication that he required
assistance to complete activities of daily living or that
he was unable to provide self-care or that his
conditions were not being treated
(2) Cited Case Reversed on Appeal
Case Name and Citation 	Defendant
Rodgers’ Cited
Medical
Condition
Actual Reason(s) for District Court’s Decision
United States v. DeFoggi, No.
8:13CR105, 	2022 	WL
1785435, at *6 (D. Neb. June
1, 2022)
Bronchitis 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstances,
in part, based on 64-year-old defendant’s health
conditions 	(including 	a 	history 	of 	cancer 	and
bronchitis) that “place him at a high risk of severe
illness should he contract COVID-19,” holding that
“DeFoggi’s . . . medical history and conditions in
relation to the COVID-19 pandemic . . . constitute[]
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 13

A-2
extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons 	for 	his
compassionate release”
**The Eighth Circuit reversed the cited district court
case in the relevant respect on appeal, holding that an
“individualized inquiry” was necessary requiring
evidence 	“regarding, 	inter 	alia, 	how 	or 	if 	his
conditions 	were 	controlled 	in 	the 	prison
environment, the rates of infection and death [from
COVID-19] at his facility, or the relative health risks
if he remained in custody and if her were released.”
No. 22-2327, No. 22-2394, 2023 WL 4112142, at *2
(8th Cir. June 22, 2023). 	And the district court
subsequently denied Defendant’s second motion for
compassionate release, finding that the defendant
failed to show “why he is uniquely at risk from
contracting COVID-19” or of an “individualized
increased serious risk of complications or death if he
contracts COVID-19.” 	No. 8:13CR105, Doc. 488
(Apr. 3, 2024) (slip op.).
(3) 	Cited Cases Finding Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstance(s) for Compassionate
Release Based on Non-Medical Reasons
Case Name and Citation 	Defendant
Rodgers’ Cited
Medical
Condition
Actual Reason(s) for District Court’s Decision
United 	States 	v. 	Blackbird,
No. CR 05-174-GF-BMM-1,
2024 WL 3552446, at *2-3 (D.
Mont. July 26, 2024)
Umbilical
Hernia
(1) finding no extraordinary and compelling reason
for compassionate release based on defendant’s
asserted 	medical 	conditions 	including 	umbilical
hernia, among others, for which the district court was
unable to “determine the severity of” or “the care that
his 	conditions 	require, 	or 	the 	effects 	that 	his
conditions have on his ability to function” because
the defendant failed to include progress notes or
similar medical documentation, but (2) granting
compassionate 	release 	based 	on 	family
circumstances that the district court found were
extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	under 	U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(3)(C))
United States v. Legrand, No.
CCB-10-052, 	2024 	WL
2941282, at *7 (D. Md. June
11, 2024)
Hiatal Hernia 	(1) 	finding 	no 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance for compassionate release based on
COVID-19 risks with underlying medical conditions
(including obesity and type-2 diabetes), and (2) only
considering defendant’s hiatal hernia, GERD, and
other 	medical 	conditions in the 	district 	court’s
consideration of whether a change in law constitutes
an extraordinary and compelling circumstance for
compassionate release, reasoning that given those
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 13

A-3
conditions, “it is unlikely that Mr. Legrand, if
released . . . would commit [similar] offenses”
United States v. Gallardo, No.
19-CR-2608-GPC, 2024 WL
4879493, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan.
8, 2024)
Inguinal Hernia
(Left and Right)
finding the combination of defendant’s “significant
rehabilitation and the effect of COVID-19 and
Gallardo’s chronic medical conditions” with the
clarification or change in law or sentencing disparity
to be extraordinary and compelling circumstance for
compassionate release
United States v. Johnson, No.
ELH-99-352, 	2023 	WL
7130950, at *18-20 (D. Md.
Oct. 27, 2023)
COVID-19
Long-Hauler
(1) 	finding 	no 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance for compassionate release based on
COVID-19 long-hauler symptoms and other medical
conditions including abdominal pain, but (2) only
finding 	an 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance for compassionate release based on a
subsequent change in sentencing law and sentencing
disparity concerns
United States v. Woods, No.
3:12-40-JFA, 	2023 	WL
4768345, at *7 (D.S.C. July
26, 2023)
Bronchitis 	(1) finding that the defendant “failed to show an
extraordinary 	or 	compelling 	reason 	for
compassionate 	release” 	regarding 	his 	various
medical conditions including asthma and bronchitis
with lingering COVID-19 symptoms, but (2) only
finding 	an 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance for compassionate release based on 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) stacking concerns in light of the First
Step Act amending § 924(c)
United States v. Hernandez,
No. 5:15-cr-00033, 2022 WL
17905070, at *2-3 (S.D.W.V.
Dec. 22, 2022)
COVID-19
Long-Hauler
Symptoms
(1) 	finding 	no 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance for compassionate release on medical
grounds as a COVID-19 “long-hauler”, but (2)
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on a change in
sentence law that would impact the defendant’s
career-offender status for sentencing purposes and
the lengthy sentence already served (92 percent of his
10-year sentence)
United States v. Dunich-Kolb,
No. 14-150 (KM), 2022 WL
580919, at *3-7 (D.N.J. Feb.
14, 2022)
Bronchitis 	(1) 	finding 	no 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling
circumstance for compassionate release based on
asserted medical reasons including risk of COVID-
19 	infection, 	obesity, 	or 	the 	defendant’s 	self-
diagnosed “stage four bronchitis” or other chronic
lung diseases 	which were 	not reflected in the
defendant’s medical records, but (2) finding as an
extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	circumstance 	for
compassionate release the need to care for his 82-
year-old mother for whom defendant had been the
sole caretaker and who both “[a] treating osteopath
confirms . . . requires assistance with the activities of
daily living” and who “would be at unusual risk of
severe injury from a fall,” and where the defendant’s
brother “does nothing to provide the day-to-day
assistance to his mother”
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 9 of 13

A-4
United States v. Johnson, No.
05-cr-00167-WHA-5, 	2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209833, at
*8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2021)
Bronchitis 	(1) expressly declining to “decide whether Mr.
Johnson’s 	medical 	conditions—chronic 	asthma,
chronic bronchitis, and chronic allergic rhinitis—
combined with COVID-19, rise to the level of
extraordinary and compelling reasons” (2) after
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on the defendant’s
youthful age at the time of sentencing in combination
with the defendant’s rehabilitation while incarcerated
(4) 	Cited Cases Finding Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstance(s) for Compassionate
Release for Facially Dissimilar Medical Reasons
Case Name and Citation 	Defendant
Rodgers’ Cited
Medical
Condition
Actual Reason(s) for District Court’s Decision
United States v. Carter, No.
13-CR-900 	(JMF0, 	14-CR-
501 	(JMF), 	2025 	WL
1865278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July
7, 2025)
Esophagitis 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under 	U.S.S.G. 	§ 1B1.13(b)(2), 	considering
defendant’s age (67 years old), that he served 92%
(or approximately 13 years) of his approximately
14.5-year 	term 	of 	imprisonment, 	and 	medical
conditions 	(debilitating arthritis 	that 	“limits 	his
ability to perform routine, daily activities,” along
with 	diaphragmatic 	hernia, 	hyperlipidemia,
prediabetes, 	GERD, 	age-related 	cataracts, 	and
Vitamin D deficiency
United States v. Manna, No.
88-00239 	(RK), 	2025 	WL
1122286, at *4-6 (D.N.J. Apr.
16, 2025)
Inguinal Hernia
(Left and Right)
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 95-year old
defendant 	with 	“well-chronicled 	severe 	health
problems” including “high-risk Stage II metastatic
lung cancer,” i.e., a “terminal illness,” and where
medical 	records 	indicated 	that 	“Mr. 	Manna’s
deteriorating health has substantially diminished his
ability to care for himself
**right inguinal hernia was listed only in passing
referencing 	forth 	patient 	diagnoses 	for 	Manna
contained 	within 	FMC 	Rochester’s 	medical
summary, 2025 WL 1122286, at *5 n.6.
United States v. Gaddy, No.
CR 	488-032, 	2025 	WL
815632, at *3-6 (S.D. Ga.
Mar. 13, 2025)
COVID-19
Long-Hauler
Symptoms
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under 	U.S.S.G. 	§ 	1B1.13(b)(2) 	for 	85-year-old
defendant who has served approximately 36 years in
prison with a life expectancy of “less than three
years,” 	suffering 	compromised 	vision, 	hearing,
breathing, and mobility, with expert evidence that he
“has permanent and debilitating illnesses that cause
significant disability in his daily life” and that his
“multiple medical problems . . . demonstrate age-
related deterioration of health and that make him at
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 10 of 13

A-5
high risk of serious physical injury and accelerated
cognitive decline,” including coronary artery disease,
nuclear cataract of both eyes, posterior vitreous
detachment of his left eye, idiopathic peripheral
neuropathy, abdominal pain, incontinence, swelling
of 	the 	prostrate, 	frequent 	UTI’s, 	and 	diabetes
mellitus, and severe joint pain
United States v. Trucchio, No.
8:04-cr-348-CEH-TGW, 2024
WL 4869547, at *6-7 (M.D.
Fla. Nov. 22, 2024)
COVID-19
Long-Hauler
Symptoms
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 73-year-old
defendant, having served at least 10-years of his
sentence, 	and 	where 	his 	“extensive 	medical
conditions” 	(including 	COPD, 	spinal 	muscular
atrophy, acute osteoarthritis, legal blindness) “has
clearly 	extensively 	declined 	. 	. 	. 	and 	[he] 	is
experiencing deteriorating physical health because of
the aging process, that has substantially diminished
his ability to provide self-care within the prison
environment,” 	including 	where 	defendant 	was
“largely wheelchair bound” with “limited physical
movement”
United States v. Cunningham,
No. 	CR 	12-60-GF-BMM,
2024 WL 50908, at *2-3 (D.
Mont. Jan. 4, 2024)
Inguinal Hernia
(Left and Right)
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 81-year old
defendant 	who 	had 	a 	hernia, 	seizures, 	and
compression fractures in his neck and back, among
other ailments, and who had served more than 70
percent of his 180-month term of imprisonment
United States v. Stevens, No.
94-00002-KD, 	2023 	WL
3236892, at *3-17 (S.D. Ala.
May 3, 2023)
Umbilical
Hernia
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 67-year-old
defendant who had served 29 years of his life-
sentence, 	and 	whose 	health 	had 	“seriously
deteriorated because of the aging process,” where (1)
evidence submitted in support by medical experts
showed that the defendant “is not receiving prompt
or proper treatment for his diagnosed illnesses and
(2) several diagnoses—not including the defendant’s
umbilical hernia which had been surgically repaired
and resolved while incarcerated—such as loss of his
left eye and deterioration in vision of his right eye
due 	to 	glaucoma 	and 	rheumatoid 	arthritis,
neuropathies, 	and 	hyperparathyroidism 	and
parathyroid 	adenoma 	“indicate 	that 	Stevens 	is
experiencing a serious deterioration because of the
aging process, which is beyond what is normally
experienced”
United 	States 	v. 	Garcia-
Gonzalez, 	No. 	19CR4809-
AJB, 2022 WL 22894879, at
*1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022)
Hiatal Hernia 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
“given 	Mr. 	Garcia’s 	degenerative 	condition,
including 	muscular 	dystrophy, 	acute 	myeloid
leukemia, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder,
wheelchair 	confinement 	hiatal 	hernia, 	and 	an
assigned ‘inmate companion to perform his Activities
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 11 of 13

A-6
of Daily Living,” for which the government did not
oppose as a basis for compassionate release
United States v. Robinson, No.
89 	CR 	908-31, 	2022 	WL
4119800, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 9, 2022)
Esophagitis 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 80-year-old
defendant in custody for more than 30 years and “is
in declining health,” including conditions which have
required that he “beg[in] using a wheelchair for at
least some routine activities”
United States v. Howard, No.
1:04-CR-5234 AWI, 2022 WL
2670032, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal.
July 11, 2022)
Bronchitis 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
as to 65-year old defendant confined to a wheelchair,
dependent on oxygen, and worsening lung diseases
including COPD and emphysema that a physician
described 	as 	“end 	stage 	emphysema,” 	“chronic
hypoxemic respiratory failure with a limited life
expectancy,” and indicated that defendant had a
“very poor prognosis,” and where the BOP facility
medical director advised the defendant that BOP
“had run out of options and that he [the defendant]
should seek a reduction in sentence
United States v. Figueroa, No.
07-CR-6219-FPG, 2022 WL
167536, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan.
19, 2022)
Esophagitis 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
based on defendant’s documented myriad of medical
conditions including end stage renal disease and end
stage liver disease, cirrhosis of the liver, and COPD,
among others, all of which are “long-term and life-
threatening” 	medical 	problems 	with a 	potential
“limited life expectancy”
United States v. Hicks, No.
2:05-cr-00040, 	2022 	WL
138690, at *3 (S.D.W.V. Jan.
14, 2022)
Esophagitis 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release because defendant was
terminally 	ill 	with 	incurable 	cryptogenic 	liver
cirrhosis causing several chronic medical health
issues that “leave Mr. Hicks all but incapacitated”
and where “[n]either the Government nor the warden
. . . dispute that Mr. Hicks’ condition is terminal,”
with a “best prognosis” of “no more than a year to
live”
United States v. Bronner, No.
3:19-cr-109-MMH-JRK,
3:17-cr-063-MMH-JRK, 2021
WL 5798302, at *2-3 (M.D.
Fla. Dec. 7, 2021)
Umbilical
Hernia
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on defendant’s
terminal end-stage or terminal liver disease, for
which outside medical professionals had advised the
U.S. Marshals “to prepare to provide Bronner with
‘end of life care’ due to the advanced nature of his
disease”
United States v. Jones, No.
7:11CR00039-006, 2021 WL
3630459, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug.
17, 2021)
Inguinal Hernia
(Left and Right)
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on the defendant’s
“current inability to obtain necessary surgery while
incarcerated” to fix an inguinal hernia because of the
COVID-19 pandemic and BOP’s suspension of all
non-emergency medical procedures at that time,
where defendant had already served more than 122
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 12 of 13

A-7
months 	(more 	than 10 years) 	of 	a 	240-month
sentence
United States v. Newell, No.
1:13-CR-165-1, 	1:15-CR-
362-1, 1:13-CR-214-2, 2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143059, at
*3-15 	(M.D.N.C. 	July 	30,
2021)
Umbilical
Hernia
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on being in the
height of the COVID-19 pandemic without expressly
considering 	defendant’s 	umbilical 	hernia, 	for
defendant 	who 	had 	been 	in 	custody 	for
approximately 8 years
United States v. Ball, No. 06-
cr-20465, 2021 WL 2351088,
at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. June 9,
2021)
Inguinal Hernia
(Left and Right)
finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on defendant’s
medical conditions including obesity, pre-diabetic,
and hypertension in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic “in combination with Defendant’s other
arguments,” 	primarily 	including 	a 	sentencing
disparity where “if [Ball] were made to serve his
entire term of 30 years [of which he had served more
than 10 years], he would be made to serve more time”
than two co-defendants who had each been granted
compassionate release after serving 10 years of their
20-year sentences and who were more culpable in the
RICO conspiracy surrounding the motorcycle club
(having occupied a top leadership position or having
been convicted of a more serious firearm crime than
Ball)
United States v. Douglas, No.
10-171-4 	(JDB), 	2021 	WL
214563, at *4-7 (D.D.C. Jan.
21, 2021)
Hiatal Hernia 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for compassionate release based on defendant’s well-
documented severe and “uncontrolled hypertension
and 	[left 	ventricular 	hypertrophy], 	insufficient
treatment [by BOP], and the virulent prevalence of
COVID-19” at the BOP facility as to defendant who
had 	served 	almost 	51 	months 	and 	had 	been
incarcerated continuously for 28 years since January
1993), with nothing in this case suggesting that the
defendant had a hiatal hernia
United States v. McElrath, No.
3-cr-235 (JNE)(1), 2020 WL
5423067, at *1-2 (D. Minn.
Sept. 10, 2020)
Hiatal Hernia 	finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance
for 	compassionate 	release—as 	agreed 	by 	the
parties—as to defendant who had served over 15
years in prisonbased on defendant’s myriad medical
conditions (obesity, organ loss in intestines and
stomach, 	hypertension, 	hyperlipidemia, 	prostate
disorder, 	esophageal 	reflux, 	gastritis, 	erosive
duodenitis, 	and 	a 	hiatal 	hernia) 	that 	“together
constitute a ‘serious physical or medical condition,’”
where (1) the defendant’s leg had been amputated, he
used a wheelchair, and he has an artificial stomach
and (2) all in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
Case 2:18-cr-04117-RK Document 161 Filed 02/10/26 Page 13 of 13