USA v. Calogero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 18-203
PASCAL CALOGERO 	SECTION “R”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	defendant 	Pascal 	Calogero’s 	motion 	for
reconsideration of this Court’s order denying his previous motion for
compassionate release.1 The Government opposes the motion. 2
On August 7, 2019, the Court sentenced Calogero to 121 months’
imprisonment 	for 	conspiracy 	to 	commit 	sex 	trafficking 	of 	a 	child. 3
Specifically, 	Calogero 	had 	sex 	with 	a 	minor 	victim, 4 	advertised 	her
availability by sending explicit photographs of her to other men, 5 	and
arranged for others to have sex with her. 6 	The Court ordered defendant to
surrender by October 7, 2019. 7 	The Court twice extended Calogero’s
1 	R. Doc. 91.
2 	R. Doc. 93.
3 	See R. Doc. 54 at 1-2.
4 	See R. Doc. 40 at 6 ¶ 18.
5 	See id. at 7 ¶ 19.
6 	See id.
7 	See R. Doc. 54 at 2.
Case 2:18-cr-00203-SSV-DMD Document 95 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 5

2
surrender date for medical reasons, 8 allowing him until February 4, 2020, to
surrender. 9
Calogero now urges the Court to reconsider its denial of his earlier
motion for compassionate release on the grounds that he has now submitted
a 	letter 10 	showing 	that 	the 	warden 	denied 	his 	Compassionate
Release/Reduction in Sentence in August 2025. 	The Court’s earlier order
denied Calogero’s motion based on a finding that defendant had not fully
exhausted available administrative remedies.11 	The letter from the warden
Calogero now submits still does not establish that he has satisfied the
exhaustion requirement.
The letter denying Calogero’s request states that he could “commence
an appeal . . . within 20 calendar days of [] receipt.” 12 Calogero does not say
whether he appealed the warden’s decision. When, as here, a defendant has
additional, unexercised steps available to him in the Bureau of Prisons’
administrative process, he has not fully exhausted all administrative rights
to appeal. 	See e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 5369400, at *2-3
(E.D. La. Sept. 8, 2020) (citing several Fifth Circuit district court cases
8 	See R. Doc. 57 at 1-2; R. Doc. 61 at 1-2.
9 	See R. Doc. 61 at 2.
10 	R. Doc. 89.
11 	R. Doc. 88.
12 	See R. Doc. 89.
Case 2:18-cr-00203-SSV-DMD Document 95 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 5

3
requiring defendant to appeal the decision by the warden). For this reason,
Calogero’s request for compassionate release must be denied. United States
v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that exhaustion is non-
jurisdictional, but mandatory).
Even if Calogero satisfied the exhaustion requirement, the Court finds
that he has not presented “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a
sentencing reduction. Defendant primarily argues that the factual basis he
signed provided an “unfair narrative,” that he regrets his guilty plea, and had
an ineffective attorney. 	These grounds do not fit within the extraordinary
and compelling reasons enumerated by the Sentencing Commission. 	See,
e.g., United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding
that claims that “are the province of a direct appeal or a § 2255 motion” are
not cognizable under § 3582(c)).
Defendant additionally asserts that he suffers from multiple medical
issues—specifically that he has had episodes of pulmonary embolism; has a
dysfunctional bladder; requires prostate, knee, and hip replacement surgery;
presently utilizes a walker to walk; and will eventually require catheterization
to drain his bladder. 	Calogero attaches no medical records but even
assuming that he is experiencing all alleged medical conditions, the Court
finds that defendant has not established that his health conditions rise to the
Case 2:18-cr-00203-SSV-DMD Document 95 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 5

4
level of “extraordinary,” or that the facility at which he is incarcerated is
unable to manage his health needs. 	Indeed, the warden’s letter denying
Calogero’s request states that, per Calogero’s treatment team, he is “able to
independently 	complete 	all 	instrumental 	activities 	of 	daily 	living 	and
successfully function in a compound housing unit.” 13 	The Court thus finds
that compassionate release is not warranted on the basis of defendant’s
health concerns. See, e.g., United States v. Pullins, 2025 WL 1373681, at *2-
3 (M.D. La. May 12, 2025) (holding that compassionate release is generally
not justified when a defendant’s “maladies are common and treatable” and
there is nothing to suggest the defendant is unable to care for himself in the
correctional setting).
Moreover, Calogero’s age alone does not provide an “extraordinary and
compelling” reason for compassionate release. The United States Sentencing
Guideline 1B1.13(b)(2) clarifies that such reasons exist as to a defendant’s age
when:
The defendant (A) is at least 65 years old; (B) is experiencing a serious
deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process;
and (C) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of
imprisonment, whichever is less.
13 	See R. Doc. 89.
Case 2:18-cr-00203-SSV-DMD Document 95 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 5

5
Here, although Calogero is 66 years old, there is no indication that he is
experiencing a serious deterioration in his physical or mental health. 	As
mentioned above, Calogero’s treatment team is of the opinion that he is “able
to independently complete all instrumental activities of daily living and
successfully function in a compound housing unit.” 14 	Further, he has not
served 10 years or 75% of his sentence. 	Calogero began serving his 121-
month sentence in February 2020. He has thus served 70 months which is
less than 75% of his sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for
reconsideration of its earlier denial of his motion for compassionate release.
Defendant has not met the conditions required for compassionate release.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14 	See R. Doc. 89.
12th
Case 2:18-cr-00203-SSV-DMD Document 95 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 5