USA v. Gray 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-15-0060-01
RAYNARD GRAY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Raynard Gray ("Defendant") has filed a motion seeking
Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and § lBl.13
("Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release") (Docket
Entry No. 626) . The United States has filed the Government's
Response to Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release
(Docket Entry No. 628). For the reasons explained below,
Defendant's motion will be denied.
I. Background
In 2016 a grand jury returned a Second Superseding Indictment
against Defendant in connection with an armed robbery of a local
credit union.1 After a four-day trial in March of 2017, a jury
found Defendant guilty of two counts of bank robbery under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) (counts one and three), carrying and using a
firearm in relation to a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C.
1Second Superseding Indictment, Docket Entry No. 221.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

§ 924{c) {count two), and brandishing a firearm in relation to a
"crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c} (count four).2 On
April 3, 2018, Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of
150 months' imprisonment for counts one and three, followed by a
consecutive term of 60 months' imprisonment for the firearms
offense in count two and another consecutive term of 300 months for
the firearms offense alleged in count four, for a total of 510
months' imprisonment.3
Although Defendant challenged his conviction on appeal, the
Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction.4 Defendant filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court of the
United States denied.5 Defendant did not seek further review under
28 u.s.c. § 2255.
On September 14, 2021, Defendant filed his first motion for
compassionate release, arguing that he was entitled to a sentence
reduction under § 403(a} of the First Step Act. 6 Finding that
2Verdict, Docket Entry No. 330 (Gray).
3 Judgment in a Criminal Case, Docket Entry No. 477, p. 2. For
purposes of identification, all page numbers refer to the
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court I s
Electronic Case Filing system.
4Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Docket Entry No. 551, p. 19.
5Order of the Supreme Court of the United States, Docket Entry
No. 586.
6Motion for Sentence Reduction
§ 3582(c)(l)(A} ("Defendant 1 s First
Release11 ), Docket Entry No. 587, p. 8.
-2-
Under
Motion Title 18 U.S.C.
for Compassionate
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

§ 403(a) does not apply to Defendant because he was sentenced
before it went into effect, the court denied Defendant's First
Motion for Compassionate Release.7
On January 13, 2025, Defendant filed a Second Motion for
Compassionate Release, which reasserts that he is entitled to a
sentence reduction under§ 403(a) . 8
II. Legal Standard
In United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088 (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)
7Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 600,
pp. 10-11, 15-16.
8Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release, Docket
Entry No. 626, pp. 1, 5.
-3-
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

(quoting Webster's New International Dictionary 903 (2d. ed. 1934;
1950}}. Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, "district
courts may consider the following extraordinary and compelling
circumstances in their analysis: (l} 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:
(l} 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-
-4-
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

(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
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct; and
(?) the need to provide restitution to any victims of
the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
III. Analysis
A. Defendant has not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling
reasons for reducing his sentence.
Defendant argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction
under§ 403(a} of the First Step Act.9
At the time Defendant was sentenced, § 924(c) mandated a
"consecutive sentence of the statutory mandatory minimum term of 25
years for a second offense." United States v. Gray, 652 F.Supp.3d
804, 808 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2023}. However, "[i]n 2018, section
403(a) of the First Step Act clarified that the 25-year" sentence
enhancement for a second§ 924(c) conviction can only be triggered
when the second§ 924(c) conviction occurs after "the initial []
9Defendant 1 s Second Motion for Compassionate Release, Docket
Entry No. 626, pp. 4-5.
-5-
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

924{c) conviction has become final. 11 United States v. Garner,
Criminal Action No. H-14-13, 2024 WL 4068765, at *3 (S.D. Tex.
Sept. 5, 2024). The Act became effective on December 21, 2018, and
plainly states that it is not retroactive. United States v. Gomez,
960 F.3d 173, 177 {5th Cir. 2020). Therefore, because Defendant
was sentenced before§ 403(a) went into effect,10 § 403(a) does not
apply to his sentence.
Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has held that " 'a prisoner may
not leverage non-retroactive changes in criminal law to support a
compassionate release motion, because such changes are neither
extraordinary nor compelling.' 11 United States v. Austin, 125 F.4th
688, 692 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. McMaryion,
No. 21-50450, 2023 WL 4118015, at *2 (5th Cir. June 22, 2023) (per
curiam)). The Fifth Circuit explained that though "	 § lBl.13(b)(6)
of the Sentencing Guidelines says that a nonretroactive'change in
the law may be considered in determining whether the
defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason,' .
the Guidelines 'must bow to the specific directives of Congress'"
and thus "	 cannot make retroactive what Congress made non
retroactive." Id. (first quoting U.S.S.G.§ 1Bl.13(b)(6) and then
quoting United States v. LaBonte, 117 S. Ct. 1673, 1677 (1997)).
10 Defendant was sentenced on April 3, 2018, and§ 403{a) went
into effect on December 21, 2018. Judgment in a Criminal Case,
Docket Entry No. 477, p. 1.
-6-
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

B. The § 3553{a) factors counsel against a reduction.
Although Defendant has made no effort to demonstrate that a
reduction in sentence is warranted under the§ 3553(a) factors, the
court nevertheless is "obligated to consider the Section 3553(a)
factors before deciding whether to order compassionate release."
Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021). In its
denial of Defendant's First Motion for Compassionate Release the
court found that:
[T] he "seriousness of the offense" weighs heavily against
a reduction in sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2) (A).
According to the Presentence Investigation Report
( "PSR''), Gray was identified as a leader/organizer of the
crew that robbed the Shared Resources Credit Union while
carrying firearms. Gray planned the offense, recruited
members of the crew, and supplied them with weapons .
While serving as lookout outside the establishment, Gray
communicated with the armed perpetrators by cell phone
during the offense that occurred on July 28, 2014, in
which $19,470 was stolen and never recovered. The
robbers terrorized the credit union employees during the
offense, then led police on a high-speed chase .
. The PSR assessed a total of 25 criminal history
points, placing Gray in Criminal History Category VI.
The PSR reflects that between the age of 14 and 31, when
he orchestrated the robbery of the Shared Resources
Credit Union, Gray incurred at least 20 convictions in
state court for offenses of assault, possession of
mariJqana, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and
multiple counts of criminal trespass, evading arrest of
detention by police, and burglary of a motor vehicle. ,In
one case Gray was charged with aggravated assault after
he shot someone in the back during an argument, but he
was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement of attempted
possession of a firearm by a felon.
The PSR reflects that Gray was involved in other bank
robberies that preceded the offense that occurred at the
Shared Resources Credit Union on July 28, 2014. On
July 14, 2014, two weeks before the Shared Resources
-7-
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

Credit Union robbery took place, Gray and the same group
of perpetrators robbed the Texas Bay Area Credit Union in
Houston using guns provided by Gray . . . . There is no
information in the PSR about whether Gray or his
confederates were ever charged in connection with this
offense.
At the sentencing hearing Gray denied having
anything to do with robbing the Shared Resources Credit
Union, despite ample evidence to the contrary at his
trial, and he has not accepted responsibility or shown
any remorse. Nor has he provided any evidence of
rehabilitation while in prison. Given the serious nature
of his criminal record, Gray has not established that the
sentence imposed no longer serves the need to afford
adequate deterrence for his criminal conduct or to
protect the public from further crimes by him. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553 (a) (2) (B)- (C).
Gray, 652 F.Supp.3d at 810-11. The court therefore concludes that
the § 3553(a) factors weigh against granting Defendant's Second
Motion for Compassionate Release.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons explained above, Defendant's motion seeking
Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and § lBl.13
(Docket Entry No. 626) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 27th day of January, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-8-
Case 4:15-cr-00060 Document 658 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8