USA v. Cano et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. CRIMINAL NUMBER H-05-0478-02
CARLOS GALLEGOS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Carlos Gallegos ("Defendant") has filed Petitioner's Motion
For Reduction In Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
("Defendant's Second MFCR") (Docket Entry No. 307), arguing that
his father's health and Defendant's age at the time of sentencing
are extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify a sentence
reduction.1 The Government has filed the Government's Response to
Defendant's Sentence-Reduction Motion ("Government's Response")
(Docket Entry No. 309). Having carefully considered Defendant's
Second MFCR, the Government's Response, and the applicable law, the
court concludes that Defendant's Second MFCR should be denied.
I. Background
On July 26, 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to
Commit Hostage Taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203(a).2 On
1 Defendant's Second MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307, pp. 5-7. All
page numbers refer to the pagination printed at the top of the page
by the court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2 Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 163,
pp. 1, 3 'I 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 22, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

January 12, 2007, the court sentenced him to 324 months in
custody.3 The court also sentenced Defendant to 5 years of
supervised release. 4
On August 3, 2023, Defendant filed a request with the warden
asking him to file a motion for compassionate release on his behalf
based on the Sentencing Commission's study, which "determined that
[Defendant's] currently imposed sentence for a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1203, is two times the national average."5 The warden did
not reply. On November 6, 2023, Defendant filed his first motion
for compassionate release, arguing that his sentence should be
reduced because of the disparity between his sentence and the
national average. 6 The court denied his motion.7
On January 16, 2025, Defendant filed another request with the
warden asking him to file a motion for compassionate release on his
behalf based on his father's failing health.8 The warden did not
respond. On June 18, 2025, Defendant filed a second motion for
compassionate release, which raises two grounds that he argues are
3 Judgment in a Criminal Case, Docket Entry No. 201, pp. 1-2.
4 Id. at 3.
5 Inmate Request to Staff, Exhibit 1 to Government's Response,
Docket Entry No. 309-1.
6 Petitioner's Motion for a Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (1) (A) Otherwise Known as Compassionate Release,
Docket Entry No. 285, pp. 5-6.
7Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 304, p. 5.
8 Inmate Request to Staff, Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Second
MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307-1, p. 1.
-2-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduced sentence:
(1) the "health and medical condition of [his] father, Juan
Gallegos," pursuant to § lBl.13(b)(3)(C) and (2) "his young age at
the time he received a cumulative 29 year sentence . .
rehabilitation in prison" pursuant to § lBl.13(b)(5). 9
II. Legal Standard
[and] his
In United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1089 (5th Cir.
2022), the court stated the requirement for obtaining compassionate
release under § 3582(c):
[A] prisoner seeking compassionate release must
overcome three hurdles. First, "extraordinary and
compelling reasons" must justify the reduction of his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, the
reduction must be "consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Finally, the prisoner must persuade
the district court that his early release would be
consistent with the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Id. "The district court has discretion to
deny compassionate release if the Section 3553(a)
factors counsel against a reduction." Ward v.
United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021).
Jackson, 27 F.4th at 1089.
"We understand 'extraordinary' to mean 'beyond or out of the
common order,' 'remarkable,' and synonymous with 'singular.'"
United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 186 (5th Cir. 2023)
(quoting Webster's New International Dictionary 903 (2d. ed. 1934;
1950)). Under § 1Bl.13(b) of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, "district courts may consider the following
9 Defendant's Second MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307, pp. 6-7.
-3-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

extraordinary and compelling circumstances in their analysis:
(1) medical circumstances of the defendant; (2) age of the
defendant; (3) family circumstances of the defendant; (4) whether
the defendant, while in custody, was a victim of abuse; (5) other
reasons similar in gravity to those previously described; and (6) a
change in the law resulting in the defendant receiving an unusually
long sentence." United States v. Hamilton, Criminal Action
No. H-17-418, 2024 WL 4052336, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2024).
The § 3553(a) factors are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed-
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of
the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment in the
most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range
established for-
* * *
(A) the applicable category of offense committed
by the applicable category of defendant as set
forth in the guidelines-
(5) any pertinent
statement-
[Sentencing Commission] policy
-4-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

* * *
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of
the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
III. Analysis
A. Defendant has exhausted administrative remedies.
The Government argues that this court cannot consider
Defendant's Second MFCR because he has led to exhaust his
administrative remedies by not filing a request with the warden
that scusses his father's declining health.10
"Congress used c language: all requests for compassionate
release must be presented to the Bureau of Prisons before they are
litigated in the federal courts." United States v. Franco, 973
F.3d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 2020). The prisoner's request to the
Bureau of Prisons must reference the same conditions that the
prisoner presents to the federal court in his subsequent
§ 3582 (c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Gonzalez, 849 F. App'x
116, 117 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that a prisoner did not exhaust
his administrative remedies when his request to the warden "did not
discuss the conditions referenced in his subsequent § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion").
10 Government's Response, Docket Entry No. 309, pp. 4-5.
-5-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

Although Defendant's first request with the warden did not
discuss his father's health or his age, 11 his second request with
the warden does . 12 Defendant has therefore fully exhausted all
administrative remedies, and this court can consider Defendant's
Second MFCR.
B. Defendant has not established extraordinary and compelling
circumstances that justify reducing his sentence.
1. The Health and Medical Condition of Defendant's Father
"[E]xtraordinary and compelling reasons for a compassionate
release exist where the defendant prisoner presents as
circumstances '[t]he incapacitation of the defendant's parent when
the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the
parent.'ll United States v. Lopez-Vargas, Criminal Action No. H-09-
534-04, 2024 WL 2114306, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 10, 2024) (quoting
U.S.S.G. § lBl.13 (b) (3) (C)). However, simply caring for "a sick
and/or aging parent is not a qualifying 'family circumstance' under
[the sentencing guidelines] . ll	
United States v. Hudec, Criminal
No. 4:91-1-1, 2020 WL 4925675, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020).
Since Defendant has a brother and an uncle who have written
this court in support of his release, 13 Defendant has not
11 Inmate Request to Staff, Exhibit 1 to Government's Response,
Docket Entry No. 309-1.
12 Inmate Request to Staff, Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Second
MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307-1, p. 1.
13 Letters in Support of Defendant's Release, Exhibit 1 to
Defendant's Second MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307-1, pp. 8, 10.
-6-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

established that he is the only available caregiver for his
father.14 Because caring for a sick and/or aging parent is not a
qualifying circumstance under the sentencing guidelines, Defendant
has not established that his father's declining health is an
extraordinary and compelling circumstance that justifies reducing
his sentence.
2. The Catch-all Provision
Defendant argues that his young age at the time of sentencing,
changes in the law, and his rehabilitation constitute extraordinary
and compelling circumstances under § 1Bl.13(b)(5).15
The Sentencing Guidelines include a catch-all provision that
applies when "[t]he defendant presents any other circumstance or
combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves or
together with any of the reasons described in paragraphs (1)
through (4), are similar in gravity to those described in
paragraphs (1) through (4)." U.S.S.G. § lBl.13 (b) (5).
a. Young Age and Changes in the Law
Defendant argues that if he committed the same offense today
his sentencing would not be as harsh because Amendment 829 to the
14 Defendant states that he is the only available caregiver
because his siblings have their own families and work long hours.
Defendant's Second MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307, pp. 6-7. However,
the fact that his siblings have their own families does not
establish that Defendant is the only available caregiver for his
father. See Hudec, 2020 WL 4925675, at *5 (holding that the
defendant did not establish he was the only caregiver for his sick
parent because "he has two brothers").
15 Defendant's Second MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307, pp. 7-12.
-7-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

Sentencing Guidelines allows the court to give a lesser sentence
based on the defendant's young age.16
However, because "'a non-retroactive change in the law is not
an extraordinary or compelling reason' justifying compassionate
release," United States v. Agee, Criminal No. 3:13-CR-0478-B-1,
2025 WL 2374681, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2025) (quoting
United States v. Austin, 125 F.4th 688, 692 (5th Cir. 2025)) and
because Amendment 829 "does not apply retroactively," Defendantfs
young age and the change in the law "do [] not warrant granting
compassionate release." Id.; see also United States v. Matute
Carcamo, Criminal Action No. H-19-494-2, 2025 WL 1677950, at *3
(S.D. Tex. June 13, 2025).
b. Rehabilitation
Defendant argues that his behavior in prison, including his
educational achievements and work performance, warrants a sentence
reduction.17
However, "while the Court may consider post-sentencing
rehabilitation in determining whether to grant an eligible
defendant a sentence reduction, it is not authorized to grant a
reduction based upon post-sentencing rehabilitation alone."
United States v. Perez-Barocela, Criminal No. 2: 12-757-2, 2023
WL 2787979, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2023); United States v. Stine,
16 Id. at 9-10.
17 Id. at 11-12.
-8-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

Criminal No. 6:03-44(S)-2, 2020 WL 7388630, at *4 (S.D. Tex.
Dec. 14, 2020). Because Defendant has failed to show that he
otherwise qualifies for a sentence reduction, the court is not
authorized to grant compassionate release based on his behavior in
prison.
C. The S 3553 (a) factors weigh against reducing Defendantr s
sentence.
Turning to the factors under § 3553(a), the court first
considers the nature and circumstances of the offense. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1). Defendant pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to
Commit Hostage Taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203(a), which is
a violent crime.18 See 18 U.S.C. § 16 (defining a crime of
violence). Defendant directly participated in the violent
kidnapping of the victim: He was the supervisor of the other
participants, provided the dangerous weapons that were used during
the commission of the offense, beat the victim, and made ransom
demands.19
Based on these serious circumstances, the court finds that the
original sentence satisfies the fairness, deterrence, and public
protection considerations of §§ 3553(a)(2) (A) -(C). While the court
appreciates Defendant's rehabilitative efforts, 20 "they are not
18 Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 163,
pp. 1, 3 1 2.
19 Id. at 3 <:II 5, 8 <:II 30, 13.
20 Defendant's Second MFCR, Docket Entry No. 307, pp. 11-12.
-9-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

enough to outweigh the court's obligation to 'promote respect for
the law,' 'provide just punishment,' and deter criminal conduct."
United States v. Ekene, Criminal Number H-19-633-02, 2025
WL 2721383, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553 (a) (2) (A) -(B)).
Finally, the court is not persuaded that Defendant's originpl
sentence flouts the sentencing guidelines, related policies, or
sentences given to similarly situated defendants. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(3)-(6).
The court therefore concludes that the§ 3553(a) factors weigh
against granting Defendant's motion.
IV. Conclusion and Order
Because Defendant has failed to establish that extraordinary
and compelling circumstances exist and because the § 3553(a)
factors weigh against granting Defendant's motion, Petitioner's
Motion For Reduction In Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (Docket Entry No. 307) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 22nd day of December, 2025.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-10-
Case 4:05-cr-00478 Document 310 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 10 of 10