USA v. Graham

UNITED STATES
v.
JONATHAN ROSS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
OF AMERICA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§ CRIMINAL NUMBER H-72-379-03
§
TULLER, §
§
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jonathan Ross Tuller ("Defendant") has filed a Motion for
Sentence Reduction First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (1) (A) (i)
("Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release") (Docket
Entry No. 41). The Government has filed Government's Response to
Defendant's Sentence-Reduction Motion ("Government's Response")
(Docket Entry No. 43). For the reasons explained below,
Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release will be denied.
I . Background
On October 29, 1972, Defendant was involved in the hijacking
of Eastern Airlines Flight Number 496.1 At the time of the
hijacking, the plane had approximately thirty-five passengers and
seven crew members on board.2
1Indictment, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 1. 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.
2Id. at 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:72-cr-00379 Document 45 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

Defendant was indicted on November 5, 1972, on one count of
air piracy in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 1472 (i), one count of
kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201, and one count of
interfering with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.s. C.
§ 1951.3 On June 24, 1976, Defendant was convicted of air piracy
and kidnapping by a jury.4 The court sentenced Defendant to 50
years on each count, to run consecutively, for a total sentence of
100 years in custody.5
On April 27, 2022, Defendant filed his first motion for
compassionate release, arguing that he was entitled to a sentence
reduction due to his vulnerability to the COVID-19 pandemic.6
Finding that (1) "COVID-related concerns alone do not constitute
'extraordinary or compelling' reasons for relief," (2) Defendant
"ha[d] not shown that the [prison was] incapable of managing the
COVID-19 pandemic," and (3) that Defendant had "failed to show that
he [was] suffering from a terminal illness or other medical
condition," the court denied Defendant's First Motion for
Compassionate Release.7
4 Presentence Report, Docket Entry No. 9, p. 1 (sealed).
5 Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order, Docket Entry No. 10.
6Motion for Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (1) (A)
("Defendant's First Motion for Compassionate Release"), Docket
Entry No. 11, p. 2.
7Order, Docket Entry No. 15, pp. 2-3.
-2-
Case 4:72-cr-00379 Document 45 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

On March 8, 2023, Defendant filed a§ 2255 motion, arguing
that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to appeal his
conviction and that his speedy trial rights were violated.8
Finding that Defendant's motion was not timely, the court denied
Defendant's§ 2255 Motion.9
On February 4, 2025, Defendant filed his Second Motion for
Compassionate Release, arguing that he is entitled to a sentence
reduction under§ 3582(c) (1) (A) because of his age, immaturity, and
dependence on his father at the time of the offense.10 On June 27,
2025, the Government filed its Response opposing Defendant's Second
Motion for Compassionate Release.11
reply.
Defendant has not filed a
II. Analysis
18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c) "does not apply to sentences imposed on
offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987.n United States v.
Watson, 868 F.2d 157, 158 (5th Cir. 1989).
"From 1976 to 1984, n 18 U.S.C. § 4205(g) as opposed to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), "defined the procedures through which
8Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody ("Defendant's
§ 2255 Motionn ), Docket Entry No. 18, pp. 4-5.
9Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 39, pp. 5-6.
10Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release, Docket
Entry No. 41, p. 2.
11Government's Response, Docket Entry No. 43.
-3-
Case 4:72-cr-00379 Document 45 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

inmates could gain compassionate release." United States v.
Arzola-Amaya, EP-87-CR-00162(1)-DCG, 2023 WL 12184944, at *2 (W.D.
Tex. Nov. 16, 2023) (quoting United States v. King, 24 F.4th 1226,
1228 (9th Cir. 2022)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section
4205(g) "authorized courts to 'reduce any minimum term' of
imprisonment 'to the time the defendant ha[d] served'" upon
receiving a motion from the Bureau of Prisons.
u.s.c. § 4205(g) (1984)).
Id. (quoting 18
In 1984 Congress repealed § 4205(g) and created a new
compassionate release process under§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Id. at *3.
Although§ 4205(g) was repealed, Congress provided that it "would
remain in effect for five years" for "defendants who committed an
offense before the [Sentencing Reform Act]'s November 1, 1987
effective date." Congress has extended the five-year
extension of § 4205(g) numerous times since 1984, with the most
recent extension in the September 30, 2023, stopgap funding bill.
Id. Moreover, Congress explicitly specified that the new
compassionate release process under§ 3582(c)(1)(A) would not apply
to defendants who committed their crimes before November 1, 1987.
Id.; Sentencing Act of 1987§ 2(a), Publ. L. No. 100-182, 101 Stat.
1266; Watson, 868 F. 2d at 158. "Section 4205(g) has therefore
never expired as to offenders who committed offenses before
November 1, 1987." Arzola-Amaya, 2023 WL 12184944, at *3.
Under this two-track system "[d]efendants who committed their
offenses after November 1, 1987" can file their own compassionate
-4-
Case 4:72-cr-00379 Document 45 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

release motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A), while "[d] efendants who
committed their offenses before November 1, 1987" must have the BOP
move for compassionate release on their behalf under § 4205(g).
Id. at *4 (emphasis in original).
Because Defendant committed his offenses before November 1,
1987, § 4305(g) governs his compassionate release motion instead of
§ 3582(c) (1) {A). Since Defendant - not BOP - filed the pending
motion, Defendant's Second Motion for Compassionate Release must be
denied.
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons explained above, Defendant's Motion for
Sentence Reduction First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
(Docket Entry No. 41) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 4th day of February, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Case 4:72-cr-00379 Document 45 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5