USA v. Crookshank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CRIMINAL NUMBER H-21-584
§
RAYTWAIN CROOKSHANK, §
§
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Raytwain Crookshank (“Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of
Possession with the Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and was sentenced
to 240 months’ imprisonment.1 Pending before the court is
Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) and the First Step Act of 2018 (“Motion for
Compassionate Release”) (Docket Entry No. 52). The Government has
filed the United States’ Response to Crookshank’s Motion for
Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(I) and the First
Step Act of 2018 (“Government’s Response”) (Docket Entry No. 56).
For the reasons explained below, Defendant’s Motion for
Compassionate Release will be denied.
1Superseding Indictment, Docket Entry No. 23, pp. 1–2;
Rearraignment, Docket Entry No. 32; Judgment in a Criminal Case,
Docket Entry No. 47, p. 2. For purposes of identification all page
numbers reference the pagination imprinted at the top of the page
by the court’s Electronic Case Filing system.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

I. Background
The Drug Enforcement Agency began conducting surveillance at
Defendant’s primary residence after the Houston Police Department
received an anonymous tip identifying Defendant as a kilogram
heroin distributor.2 After months of surveillance, investigators
executed a search warrant at Defendant’s primary residence and at
his “stash” house on November 18, 2021.3 Investigators uncovered
four kilograms of heroin, over ten kilograms of methamphetamine,
and multiple firearms.4
On December 14, 2021, a grand jury returned an indictment,
charging Defendant with a single count of Felon in Possession of a
Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).5 On
July 28, 2022, a three-count Superseding Indictment was filed,
charging Defendant with one count of Felon in Possession of a
Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)
(Count One); one count of Possession with the Intent to Distribute
Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A) (Count Two); and one count of Possession with the
Intent to Distribute Fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
2Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 41, p. 4
¶¶ 4–5 (sealed).
3Id. at 5–7 ¶¶ 12–16.
4Id.
5Indictment, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 1.
-2-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) (Count Three).6 On November 21,
2022, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count Two of the Superseding
Indictment pursuant to a Plea Agreement.7 On March 17, 2023, the
court sentenced Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment and five
years of supervised release.8 Defendant did not appeal his
conviction or sentence.
On January 2, 2024, Defendant filed an unopposed motion for a
sentence reduction pursuant to Retroactive Guideline Amendment
821.9 On January 18, 2024, the court reduced Defendant’s sentence
from 240 months to 213 months pursuant to retroactive Guideline
Amendment 821.10
On November 2, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for
Compassionate Release.11 The Government filed its response on
March 4, 2026, and Defendant did not file a reply.12
6Superseding Indictment, Docket Entry No. 23, pp. 1–2.
7Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 41, p. 3
¶ 2 (sealed).
8Judgment in a Criminal Case, Docket Entry No. 47, pp. 2-3.
9Unopposed Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to
Retroactive Guideline Amendment 821 Under Seal, Docket Entry
No. 49, p. 1 (sealed).
10Judgment in a Criminal Case, Docket Entry No. 50.
11Motion for Compassionate Release, Docket Entry No. 52,
pp. 34-36.
12Government’s Response, Docket Entry No. 56.
-3-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

I. 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)
(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: (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.
-4-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

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 [Sentencing Commission] policy
statement–
* * *
(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).
-5-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

III. Analysis
After exhausting his administrative remedies, Defendant filed
a Motion for Compassionate Release with the court, arguing that he
is entitled to a sentence reduction because (1) he is not receiving
the long-term medical care he needs for his various medical
conditions and (2) there are various factual disputes surrounding
his sentencing.13
A. Defendant has not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling
reasons for reducing his sentence.
1. Health of the Defendant
Defendant argues that he is entitled to compassionate release
under § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) because he is not receiving the long-term
care that he needs for his hypertension, hemorrhoids, kidney and
lung problems, significant leg swelling, a ruptured spleen, pain
from a titanium rod in his left arm, and a lump on the left side of
his neck.14
To prevail under § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C), a defendant “must
establish that [he] is suffering from (1) a medical condition
(2) that requires long-term or specialized medical care (3) that is
not being provided and (4) without which [he] is at risk of death
or serious deterioration in [his] health.” Hamilton, 2024
WL 4052336, at *5.
13Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release, Docket Entry
No. 52, pp. 16–27.
14Id. at 16–17.
-6-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

Defendant has failed to establish that he is not being
provided long-term medical care. Although Defendant alleges
without evidence that “the BOP has failed to provide [him] with
proper and continuous medical care,” he admits that he has been
seen by numerous “qualified doctors.”15 Defendant’s “disagreement
with the care and treatment [he] is receiving . . . does not
establish that [he] is being denied long-term . . . medical care.”
Hamilton, 2024 WL 4052336, at *6 (holding that the defendant was
not being deprived of long-term care despite not receiving “all of
the medications recommended by the [doctor]”).
2. Factual Disputes
Defendant argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction
because (1) he pleaded guilty to possessing 7,996 grams of
methamphetamine but was held accountable for 38,250 kilograms of
converted drug weight, (2) the two-level enhancement for
maintaining a drug premises was erroneously applied to his case,
making his guideline range incorrect, and (3) his sentence differs
from defendants with similar records who have been guilty of
similar conduct.16
15Id. at 17.
16Id. at 21–30. Defendant argues that there are disparities
between his sentence and the sentences of other similarly situated
defendants. However, even if this claim is cognizable under
§ 3582(c), it fails because Defendant provides no support to
establish that his sentence differs from similarly situated
defendants. See United States v. Ohumole, Criminal Case No. 4:19-
(continued...)
-7-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

However, Defendant’s claims are not cognizable as a matter of
law under § 3582(c)(1)(A) because “a prisoner cannot use § 3582(c)
to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence.”
Escajeda, 58 F.4th at 187. Instead, the proper vehicle to raise
these claims is a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Bailentia,
CASE NO. 1:11-CR-96, 2023 WL 4175158, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 25,
2023) (“[T]o the extent that [the defendant] is relying on his
present motion for compassionate release/reduction in sentence as
a vehicle to attack his conviction and sentence under § 2255,
without seeking the requisite authorization from the Fifth Circuit,
he is barred from doing so.”). Therefore, “[b]ecause [Defendant]’s
claims would have been cognizable under § 2255, they are not
cognizable under § 3582(c).” Escajeda, 58 F.4th at 188.
B. The § 3553(a) factors counsel against a reduction.
Defendant argues that the § 3553(a) factors support
compassionate release because “[he] has demonstrated a profound and
sustained commitment to self-improvement, personal growth, and
readiness for productive re-entry into society.”17
The court first considers the nature and circumstances of the
offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). In 2021 investigators
16(...continued)
CR-00918, 2024 WL 2725031, at *6 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2024)
(“[Defendant] has cited no examples of similarly situated
defendants who received lower sentences.”).
17Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release, Docket Entry
No. 52, pp. 30–34.
-8-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

executed a search warrant at Defendant’s primary residence and at
his “stash” house.18 Investigators uncovered four kilograms of
heroin, over ten kilograms of methamphetamine, and multiple
firearms.19 Defendant possessed these drugs and firearms while on
parole for a twenty-year prison sentence for felon in possession of
a weapon.20 Defendant’s role in such a serious offense makes a
sentence reduction inappropriate.
The court next considers the need for the sentence imposed.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Defendant possessed four kilograms of
heroin, over ten kilograms of methamphetamine, and multiple
firearms while being on parole for a conviction for a felon in
possession of a weapon. Moreover, Defendant has an extensive
criminal history, including five felony convictions and six
misdemeanor convictions involving possession of controlled
substances, possession of firearms, or assaultive conduct.21 While
the court appreciates Defendant’s rehabilitative efforts, “they are
not 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,
18Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 41,
pp. 5–7 ¶¶ 12–16 (sealed).
19Id.
20Government’s Response, Docket Entry No. 56, p. 18.
21Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 41,
pp. 10–15 ¶¶ 35–47 (sealed). Defendant has a total of six felony
convictions and seven misdemeanor convictions. Id.
-9-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

2025 WL 2721383, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a)(2) (A)-(B)). 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).
The court therefore concludes that the§ 3553(a) factors weigh
against granting Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons explained above, Defendant's Motion for
Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(1)(A) and the
First Step Act of 2018 (Docket Entry No. 52) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 17th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-10-
Case 4:21-cr-00584 Document 57 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10