United States v. Rodgers, No. 2:18-cr-04117-RK (Feb. 10, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
United States v. Clint Travis Rodgers
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Feb. 10, 2026
Majority
Roseann A. Ketchmark (J.) (unanimous Court)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 370325Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court,W.D. Missouri, Central Division.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.(2) CLINT TRAVIS RODGERS, Defendant.Case No. 2:18-cr-04117-RK|Filed 02/10/2026ORDERROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT*1 Before the Court is Defendant Clint Rodgers' secondmotion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) and for sentence reduction pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. Amendment 821. (Doc.149.) This motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 151, 155, 156.)After careful consideration and complete review of themotion on the merits, the Court ORDERS that Defendant'smotion for compassionate release and to reduce sentence isDENIED.BackgroundOn October 12, 2021, Mr. Rodgers pleaded guilty to onecount of criminal infringement of copyright in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(3) and 17 U.S.C. § 506, as chargedin a Substitute Information. (See Docs. 78, 79, 80.) Onthe same day, Mr. Rodgers' wife and co-defendant, TabithaRodgers, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal copyrightinfringement for profit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)and 17 U.S.C. § 506. (See Docs. 74, 75.) Both defendantspleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Epps, and theCourt accepted each guilty plea upon Judge Epps' Report andRecommendations to do so. (Docs. 76, 81, 82, 83.)The Court sentenced both defendants on February 8, 2023.The Court sentenced Mrs. Rodgers to a term of 48 months'imprisonment, (Docs. 113, 115), and Mr. Rodgers to a term of12 months' imprisonment, (Docs. 112, 123). The Court stayedimposition of Mr. Rodgers' sentence until after the release ofMrs. Rodgers. (Doc. 123.) Accordingly, on April 17, 2025,after Mrs. Rodgers had been released to home confinement,the Court ordered that Mr. Rodgers self-surrender to beginserving his 12-month sentence on August 21, 2025. (Doc.134.)1DiscussionI. Compassionate ReleaseFirst, Mr. Rodgers seeks compassionate release pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). Defendant argues that hedemonstrates extraordinary and compelling circumstances forcompassionate release including his family circumstances andmedical conditions, and that the sentencing factors under 18U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh in favor of compassionate release.Defendant has not shown an extraordinary and compellingreason for reduced sentence due to family circumstances.He generally argues that his children are traumatized andrecovering after their mother's release to home confinementfrom incarceration, that the family needs to stay togetherto seek counseling, and that his son was in a motorcycleaccident and Defendant would be needed to help take careof him. Considering U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3), which definesextraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionaterelease as to certain family circumstances, Defendant hasnot shown that his children are incapable of self-care dueto a medical condition and Defendant fails to establishthat he is the only caregiver available to provide care andassistance to his children. In fact, Defendant concedes that thechildren's mother, Mrs. Rodgers, was recently released fromincarceration and he has provided no reason why she is unableto provide for the children.*2 Neither has Defendant shown that his various medicalconditions demonstrate an extraordinary and compellingreason for compassionate release. Despite providing a list ofvarious conditions and symptoms, Defendant has not shownthat he cannot provide self-care within a BOP facility; nor hasDefendant shown that he requires long-term or specializedcare that is not provided by the BOP, or that the BOP is unableto effectively manage his various conditions and symptoms.See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B) and (C); United States v.Ayon-Nunez, No. 1:16-cr-00130-DAD, 2020 WL 704785, at*3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020) (“Chronic conditions that can bemanaged in prison are not a sufficient basis for compassionaterelease.”).2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Before proceeding further, the Court notes that in Defendant'sbrief, Counsel W. Tom Norrid cites various cases for eachmedical condition or symptom Defendant alleges suggestingthat “[n]umerous courts have granted compassionate releaseto defendants who suffer from” the same medical condition orsymptoms as Defendant. The Court finds the authority citedby Mr. Norrid to be inaccurate and misleading to the Court.The cases cited by Mr. Norrid are simply factually and legallyinapposite or are easily distinguishable on their face. The citedcases include:(1) cases in which the district court actually deniedcompassionate release,3(2) a case granting compassionate release based on thecircumstances of the then-rampant COVID-19 pandemic thatwas reversed on appeal,4(3) cases in which the district court granted compassionatereleased based on non-medical extraordinary and compellingreasons (including cases where the district court explicitlyconsidered—and rejected—a defendant's argument forcompassionate release based on asserted medical conditionsand symptoms),5 and*3 (4) cases in which the district court grantedcompassionate release based on medical condition(s) andsurrounding circumstances that are patently distinguishablefrom Defendant's asserted conditions, symptoms, andcircumstances.6The Court addresses each case cited by Mr. Norrid in moredetail in Appendix A.Suffice it to say, unlike the many compassionate releasecases cited by Mr. Norrid, Defendant is not elderly (he isapproximately 52 years old); he has not been incarcerated fora substantial length of time (whether as a substantial portionof his sentence of imprisonment or otherwise); he does notsuffer from either a terminal or life-threatening illness with asignificantly limited life expectancy; he does not suffer fromany medical condition that he has shown the BOP has not orreasonably will not be able to provide appropriate care andtreatment; he does not suffer from any ailment or medicalcondition that hinders his ability to care for himself on adaily basis; and he is not incarcerated during the height ofthe COVID-19 pandemic or the surge of any similar andwidespread deadly strain of an infectious disease.Collecting cases for the proposition that “[n]umerous courtshave granted compassionate release to defendants who suffer[insert Defendant's same condition]” is at best unhelpfuland at worst misleading when presented as support forwhy the Court should consider any of Defendant's medicalconditions or ailments to be an extraordinary and compellingcircumstance to grant compassionate release for all ofthe reasons explained above. If this is not an intentionalmisrepresentation to the Court, the Court suspects that Mr.Norrid may have used some form of artificial intelligencein drafting this brief without exercising even a minimallevel of professional diligence and employing reasonablesafeguards. See Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., 2023YEAR-END REPORT ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY5-6 (2023), https://www.supremecourt.gov/public info/year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf [https://perma.cc/29AK-SBRU](recognizing some of the “great potential” of AI, along withits risks, and emphasizing that “any use of AI requires cautionand humility”). But even if not, the brief counsel submittedrepresents poor advocacy and lawyering well below thatwhich is expected of counsel appearing before the Court asan officer of the Court.*4 Even if Defendant had demonstrated an extraordinaryand compelling circumstance, the Court finds that the § 3553factors weigh against compassionate release. In particular,the Court notes that, as the Government points out, Mr.Rodgers' sentence was initially stayed for the duration of hiswife's term of imprisonment to enable him to care for theirchildren and that Mr. Rodgers ultimately pleaded guilty toone misdemeanor offense despite initially being charged withnumerous felony offenses. The Court finds independentlyand separately that even if Defendant had demonstrated anextraordinary and compelling circumstance, that the need topromote respect for the law, the nature and circumstancesof the offense, and the need to provide just punishmentfor the offense heavily weigh against granting Defendantcompassionate release.Therefore, Defendant's motion for compassionate releasepursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) is DENIED after completereview of the motion on the merits.II. Motion for Sentence Reduction (Amendment 821)Defendant also seeks a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(2) because he is eligible for relief under Part B of
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3U.S.S.G. Amendment 821 or the “zero point” amendment. In2023, the Sentencing Commission added U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1,which provides for a two-level downward adjustment toa defendant's offense level if the defendant received zerocriminal history points and meets other criteria.While Defendant would be eligible for the two-pointreduction under Amendment 821, he is not eligible fora reduction in sentence because applying the two-pointreduction to the offense level would only reduce his guidelinerange but not his guideline sentence (12 months). At thesentencing hearing, the Court calculated an offense level of23 and a criminal history category I, which called for anadvisory guidelines range of 46 to 57 months' imprisonmentand a guideline sentence of 12 months (due to the statutorymaximum). Application of the two-point reduction wouldresult in a reduced guidelines range of 37 to 46 months'imprisonment but the guideline sentence would remain at 12months' imprisonment.“Where the statutorily authorized maximum sentence isless than the minimum of the applicable guideline range,the statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be theguideline sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Thus, regardless ofthe two-point reduction, the controlling guideline sentence forDefendant was and remains 12 months' imprisonment. Evenwith a reduced guideline range from 46-57 months to 37-46months, the 12-month sentence given would still be the same.In other words, if the Court had calculated Defendants' rangeto be the reduced 37-46 months, the Court would have stillsentenced Defendant to 12 months' imprisonment.7,8Conclusion*5 That Defendant “simply wants the opportunity to befree,” (Doc. 156 at 4), as counsel asserts in his reply brief,is not a reason to reduce the sentence in this case. Aftercareful review and consideration, the Court ORDERS thatDefendant Clint Rodgers' second motion to reduce sentencepursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (compassionate release)and § 3582(c)(2) (applying Amendment 821's “zero-point”offender reduction), (Doc. 149), is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.APPENDIX A(1) Cited Cases Denying Motion for CompassionateReleaseCase Name and Citation United States v. McLean, No.4:93-CR-22, 4:93-CR-47, 2022 WL 17253637, at *10-12(E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022) United States v. Maxton, No.13-cr-00411-PAB, 2020 WL 6565231, at *2-4 (D. Colo.Nov. 9, 2020) Defendant Rodgers' Cited Medical ConditionEsophagitis Umbilical Hernia Actual Reason(s) for DistrictCourt's Decision finding no extraordinary and compellingcircumstance for compassionate release despite defendant'sdiagnosis with malignant melanoma, in addition to otherconditions including hyperlipidemia and esophageal reflux,finding that the “Defendant did not provide any informationor evidence that would indicate his ability to provideself-care within the correctional facility is substantiallydiminished” and no evidence that the BOP did not have theresources to treat Defendant's condition (where his medicalrecords indicated that he was receiving treatment) **whileMcLean had been diagnosed with esophageal reflux whilein BOP custody, among various other ailments and medicalconditions, as the district court explained, “[t]he thrustof Defendant's medical argument is that he is entitled tocompassionate release because he has been diagnosed withmalignant melanoma,” and proceeded accordingly. 2022 WL17253637, at *11. finding no extraordinary and compellingcircumstance for compassionate release for defendant with“right inguinal and umbilical hernia repair” among a myriadof other medical conditions because there was no indicationthat he required assistance to complete activities of dailyliving or that he was unable to provide self-care or that hisconditions were not being treated(2) Cited Case Reversed on AppealCase Name and Citation United States v. DeFoggi, No.8:13CR105, 2022 WL 1785435, at *6 (D. Neb. June1, 2022) Defendant Rodgers' Cited Medical ConditionBronchitis Actual Reason(s) for District Court's Decisionfinding extraordinary and compelling circumstances, in part,based on 64-year-old defendant's health conditions (includinga history of cancer and bronchitis) that “place him at ahigh risk of severe illness should he contract COVID-19,”holding that “DeFoggi's ... medical history and conditionsin relation to the COVID-19 pandemic ... constitute[ ]extraordinary and compelling reasons for his compassionaterelease” **The Eighth Circuit reversed the cited districtcourt case in the relevant respect on appeal, holding that an“individualized inquiry” was necessary requiring evidence“regarding, inter alia, how or if his conditions were controlled
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4in the prison environment, the rates of infection and death[from COVID-19] at his facility, or the relative health risksif he remained in custody and if her were released.” No.22-2327, No. 22-2394, 2023 WL 4112142, at *2 (8th Cir.June 22, 2023). And the district court subsequently deniedDefendant's second motion for compassionate release, findingthat the defendant failed to show “why he is uniquely atrisk from contracting COVID-19” or of an “individualizedincreased serious risk of complications or death if he contractsCOVID-19.” No. 8:13CR105, Doc. 488 (Apr. 3, 2024) (slipop.).(3) Cited Cases Finding Extraordinary and CompellingCircumstance(s) for Compassionate Release Based onNon-Medical Reasons*6 Case Name and Citation United States v. Blackbird,No. CR 05-174-GF-BMM-1, 2024 WL 3552446, at *2-3(D. Mont. July 26, 2024) United States v. Legrand, No.CCB-10-052, 2024 WL 2941282, at *7 (D. Md. June 11,2024) United States v. Gallardo, No. 19-CR-2608-GPC,2024 WL 4879493, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024) UnitedStates v. Johnson, No. ELH-99-352, 2023 WL 7130950, at*18-20 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2023) United States v. Woods, No.3:12-40-JFA, 2023 WL 4768345, at *7 (D.S.C. July 26,2023) United States v. Hernandez, No. 5:15-cr-00033, 2022WL 17905070, at *2-3 (S.D.W.V. Dec. 22, 2022) UnitedStates v. Dunich-Kolb, No. 14-150 (KM), 2022 WL 580919,at *3-7 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2022) United States v. Johnson,No. 05-cr-00167-WHA-5, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209833,at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2021) Defendant Rodgers' CitedMedical Condition Umbilical Hernia Hiatal Hernia InguinalHernia (Left and Right) COVID-19 Long-Hauler BronchitisCOVID-19 Long-Hauler Symptoms Bronchitis BronchitisActual Reason(s) for District Court's Decision (1) findingno extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionaterelease based on defendant's asserted medical conditionsincluding umbilical hernia, among others, for which thedistrict court was unable to “determine the severity of” or“the care that his conditions require, or the effects thathis conditions have on his ability to function” becausethe defendant failed to include progress notes or similarmedical documentation, but (2) granting compassionaterelease based on family circumstances that the district courtfound were extraordinary and compelling under U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3)(C)) (1) finding no extraordinary and compellingcircumstance for compassionate release based on COVID-19risks with underlying medical conditions (including obesityand type-2 diabetes), and (2) only considering defendant'shiatal hernia, GERD, and other medical conditions in thedistrict court's consideration of whether a change in lawconstitutes an extraordinary and compelling circumstancefor compassionate release, reasoning that given thoseconditions, “it is unlikely that Mr. Legrand, if released ...would commit [similar] offenses” finding the combinationof defendant's “significant rehabilitation and the effectof COVID-19 and Gallardo's chronic medical conditions”with the clarification or change in law or sentencingdisparity to be extraordinary and compelling circumstancefor compassionate release (1) finding no extraordinaryand compelling circumstance for compassionate releasebased on COVID-19 long-hauler symptoms and othermedical conditions including abdominal pain, but (2) onlyfinding an extraordinary and compelling circumstance forcompassionate release based on a subsequent change insentencing law and sentencing disparity concerns (1) findingthat the defendant “failed to show an extraordinary orcompelling reason for compassionate release” regardinghis various medical conditions including asthma andbronchitis with lingering COVID-19 symptoms, but (2)only finding an extraordinary and compelling circumstancefor compassionate release based on 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)stacking concerns in light of the First Step Act amending§ 924(c) (1) finding no extraordinary and compellingcircumstance for compassionate release on medical groundsas a COVID-19 “long-hauler”, but (2) finding extraordinaryand compelling circumstance for compassionate releasebased on a change in sentence law that would impact thedefendant's career-offender status for sentencing purposesand the lengthy sentence already served (92 percent ofhis 10-year sentence) (1) finding no extraordinary andcompelling circumstance for compassionate release basedon asserted medical reasons including risk of COVID-19infection, obesity, or the defendant's self-diagnosed “stagefour bronchitis” or other chronic lung diseases which werenot reflected in the defendant's medical records, but (2)finding as an extraordinary and compelling circumstance forcompassionate release the need to care for his 82-year-oldmother for whom defendant had been the sole caretakerand who both “[a] treating osteopath confirms ... requiresassistance with the activities of daily living” and who “wouldbe at unusual risk of severe injury from a fall,” and wherethe defendant's brother “does nothing to provide the day-to-day assistance to his mother” (1) expressly declining to“decide whether Mr. Johnson's medical conditions—chronicasthma, chronic bronchitis, and chronic allergic rhinitis—combined with COVID-19, rise to the level of extraordinaryand compelling reasons” (2) after finding extraordinary andcompelling circumstance for compassionate release based
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5on the defendant's youthful age at the time of sentencingin combination with the defendant's rehabilitation whileincarcerated(4) Cited Cases Finding Extraordinary and CompellingCircumstance(s) for Compassionate Release for FaciallyDissimilar Medical ReasonsCase Name and Citation United States v. Carter, No. 13-CR-900 (JMF0, 14-CR-501 (JMF), 2025 WL 1865278, at *1(S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2025) United States v. Manna, No. 88-00239(RK), 2025 WL 1122286, at *4-6 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2025)United States v. Gaddy, No. CR 488-032, 2025 WL 815632, at*3-6 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2025) United States v. Trucchio, No.8:04-cr-348-CEH-TGW, 2024 WL 4869547, at *6-7 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 22, 2024) United States v. Cunningham, No. CR12-60-GF-BMM, 2024 WL 50908, at *2-3 (D. Mont. Jan. 4,2024) United States v. Stevens, No. 94-00002-KD, 2023 WL3236892, at *3-17 (S.D. Ala. May 3, 2023) United States v.Garcia-Gonzalez, No. 19CR4809-AJB, 2022 WL 22894879,at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) United States v. Robinson,No. 89 CR 908-31, 2022 WL 4119800, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill.Sept. 9, 2022) United States v. Howard, No. 1:04-CR-5234AWI, 2022 WL 2670032, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2022)United States v. Figueroa, No. 07-CR-6219-FPG, 2022 WL167536, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022) United States v.Hicks, No. 2:05-cr-00040, 2022 WL 138690, at *3 (S.D.W.V.Jan. 14, 2022) United States v. Bronner, No. 3:19-cr-109-MMH-JRK, 3:17-cr-063-MMH-JRK, 2021 WL 5798302, at*2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2021) United States v. Jones, No.7:11CR00039-006, 2021 WL 3630459, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug.17, 2021) United States v. Newell, No. 1:13-CR-165-1, 1:15-CR-362-1, 1:13-CR-214-2, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143059,at *3-15 (M.D.N.C. July 30, 2021) United States v. Ball, No.06-cr-20465, 2021 WL 2351088, at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. June 9,2021) United States v. Douglas, No. 10-171-4 (JDB), 2021WL 214563, at *4-7 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2021) United States v.McElrath, No. 3-cr-235 (JNE)(1), 2020 WL 5423067, at *1-2(D. Minn. Sept. 10, 2020) Defendant Rodgers' Cited MedicalCondition Esophagitis Inguinal Hernia (Left and Right)COVID-19 Long-Hauler Symptoms COVID-19 Long-HaulerSymptoms Inguinal Hernia (Left and Right) Umbilical HerniaHiatal Hernia Esophagitis Bronchitis Esophagitis EsophagitisUmbilical Hernia Inguinal Hernia (Left and Right) UmbilicalHernia Inguinal Hernia (Left and Right) Hiatal Hernia HiatalHernia Actual Reason(s) for District Court's Decision findingextraordinary and compelling circumstance under U.S.S.G.§ 1B1.13(b)(2), considering defendant's age (67 years old),that he served 92% (or approximately 13 years) of hisapproximately 14.5-year term of imprisonment, and medicalconditions (debilitating arthritis that “limits his ability toperform routine, daily activities,” along with diaphragmatichernia, hyperlipidemia, prediabetes, GERD, age-relatedcataracts, and Vitamin D deficiency finding extraordinaryand compelling circumstance under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 95-year old defendant with “well-chronicled severehealth problems” including “high-risk Stage II metastaticlung cancer,” i.e., a “terminal illness,” and where medicalrecords indicated that “Mr. Manna's deteriorating healthhas substantially diminished his ability to care for himself**right inguinal hernia was listed only in passing referencingforth patient diagnoses for Manna contained within FMCRochester's medical summary, 2025 WL 1122286, at *5 n.6.finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance underU.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2) for 85-year-old defendant whohas served approximately 36 years in prison with a lifeexpectancy of “less than three years,” suffering compromisedvision, hearing, breathing, and mobility, with expert evidencethat he “has permanent and debilitating illnesses that causesignificant disability in his daily life” and that his “multiplemedical problems ... demonstrate age-related deterioration ofhealth and that make him at high risk of serious physicalinjury and accelerated cognitive decline,” including coronaryartery disease, nuclear cataract of both eyes, posterior vitreousdetachment of his left eye, idiopathic peripheral neuropathy,abdominal pain, incontinence, swelling of the prostrate,frequent UTI's, and diabetes mellitus, and severe joint painfinding extraordinary and compelling circumstance underU.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 73-year-old defendant, havingserved at least 10-years of his sentence, and where his“extensive medical conditions” (including COPD, spinalmuscular atrophy, acute osteoarthritis, legal blindness) “hasclearly extensively declined ... and [he] is experiencingdeteriorating physical health because of the aging process,that has substantially diminished his ability to provideself-care within the prison environment,” including wheredefendant was “largely wheelchair bound” with “limitedphysical movement” finding extraordinary and compellingcircumstance under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 81-yearold defendant who had a hernia, seizures, and compressionfractures in his neck and back, among other ailments, andwho had served more than 70 percent of his 180-monthterm of imprisonment finding extraordinary and compellingcircumstance under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 67-year-old defendant who had served 29 years of his life-sentence,and whose health had “seriously deteriorated because of theaging process,” where (1) evidence submitted in support bymedical experts showed that the defendant “is not receivingprompt or proper treatment for his diagnosed illnesses
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6and (2) several diagnoses—not including the defendant'sumbilical hernia which had been surgically repaired andresolved while incarcerated—such as loss of his left eye anddeterioration in vision of his right eye due to glaucoma andrheumatoid arthritis, neuropathies, and hyperparathyroidismand parathyroid adenoma “indicate that Stevens isexperiencing a serious deterioration because of the agingprocess, which is beyond what is normally experienced”finding extraordinary and compelling circumstance “givenMr. Garcia's degenerative condition, including musculardystrophy, acute myeloid leukemia, hyperlipidemia, majordepressive disorder, wheelchair confinement hiatal hernia,and an assigned ‘inmate companion to perform his Activitiesof Daily Living,” for which the government did not opposeas a basis for compassionate release finding extraordinaryand compelling circumstance under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2), as to 80-year-old defendant in custody for more than 30years and “is in declining health,” including conditions whichhave required that he “beg[in] using a wheelchair for at leastsome routine activities” finding extraordinary and compellingcircumstance as to 65-year old defendant confined to awheelchair, dependent on oxygen, and worsening lungdiseases including COPD and emphysema that a physiciandescribed as “end stage emphysema,” “chronic hypoxemicrespiratory failure with a limited life expectancy,” andindicated that defendant had a “very poor prognosis,”and where the BOP facility medical director advised thedefendant that BOP “had run out of options and thathe [the defendant] should seek a reduction in sentencefinding extraordinary and compelling circumstance basedon defendant's documented myriad of medical conditionsincluding end stage renal disease and end stage liver disease,cirrhosis of the liver, and COPD, among others, all of whichare “long-term and life-threatening” medical problems with apotential “limited life expectancy” finding extraordinary andcompelling circumstance for compassionate release becausedefendant was terminally ill with incurable cryptogenic livercirrhosis causing several chronic medical health issues that“leave Mr. Hicks all but incapacitated” and where “[n]eitherthe Government nor the warden ... dispute that Mr. Hicks'condition is terminal,” with a “best prognosis” of “no morethan a year to live” finding extraordinary and compellingcircumstance for compassionate release based on defendant'sterminal end-stage or terminal liver disease, for which outsidemedical professionals had advised the U.S. Marshals “toprepare to provide Bronner with ‘end of life care’ due tothe advanced nature of his disease” finding extraordinary andcompelling circumstance for compassionate release based onthe defendant's “current inability to obtain necessary surgerywhile incarcerated” to fix an inguinal hernia because ofthe COVID-19 pandemic and BOP's suspension of all non-emergency medical procedures at that time, where defendanthad already served more than 122 months (more than10 years) of a 240-month sentence finding extraordinaryand compelling circumstance for compassionate releasebased on being in the height of the COVID-19 pandemicwithout expressly considering defendant's umbilical hernia,for defendant who had been in custody for approximately8 years finding extraordinary and compelling circumstancefor compassionate release based on defendant's medicalconditions including obesity, pre-diabetic, and hypertensionin the context of the COVID-19 pandemic “in combinationwith Defendant's other arguments,” primarily including asentencing disparity where “if [Ball] were made to servehis entire term of 30 years [of which he had served morethan 10 years], he would be made to serve more time” thantwo co-defendants who had each been granted compassionaterelease after serving 10 years of their 20-year sentences andwho were more culpable in the RICO conspiracy surroundingthe motorcycle club (having occupied a top leadershipposition or having been convicted of a more serious firearmcrime than Ball) finding extraordinary and compellingcircumstance for compassionate release based on defendant'swell-documented severe and “uncontrolled hypertension and[left ventricular hypertrophy], insufficient treatment [byBOP], and the virulent prevalence of COVID-19” at theBOP facility as to defendant who had served almost 51months and had been incarcerated continuously for 28 yearssince January 1993), with nothing in this case suggestingthat the defendant had a hiatal hernia finding extraordinaryand compelling circumstance for compassionate release—asagreed by the parties—as to defendant who had servedover 15 years in prisonbased on defendant's myriad medicalconditions (obesity, organ loss in intestines and stomach,hypertension, hyperlipidemia, prostate disorder, esophagealreflux, gastritis, erosive duodenitis, and a hiatal hernia) that“together constitute a ‘serious physical or medical condition,’” where (1) the defendant's leg had been amputated, he used awheelchair, and he has an artificial stomach and (2) all in thecontext of the COVID-19 pandemicAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 370325
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7Footnotes1It appears that Mr. Rodgers' release date is approximately July 14, 2026.2The Court notes that at the time of sentencing, Defendant reported being in “excellent physical health withno medical problems,” that he “does not take any daily medication,” and that he “is not under a physician'scare.” (Doc. 91 at 10 (PSR).) The first indication regarding Defendant's medical concerns and symptomsarose in Defendant's motion to extend his surrender date, (Doc. 137)—filed one month before the August 21,2025 self-surrender date ordered by the Court, (Doc. 134). Defendant sought to extend his reporting dateby two months, which he represented “will allow him to not have delay in treatment ... and have his medicalissues treated.” (Doc. 141 at 3.) Defendant argued (without any support) that “[w]hatever BOP prison doctorexamines Mr. Rodgers, he will not be able to treat his issues,” but will require referral to an outside specialist.(Id.) Defendant now seeks compassionate release based on many of the same conditions and symptoms. Hedid not present the same argument in his compassionate release motion that the BOP is “not ... able to treathis issues” or that he has not received the treatment and medical care necessary to manage his conditionsand symptoms since beginning his term of incarceration.3United States v. McLean, No. 4:93-CR-22, 4:93-CR-47, 2022 WL 17253637, at *10-12 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 28,2022); United States v. Maxton, No. 13-cr-00411-PAB, 2020 WL 6565231, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Nov. 9, 2020).4United States v. DeFoggi, No. 8:13CR105, 2022 WL 1785435 (D. Neb. June 1, 2022), rev'd by Case Nos.22-2327 & 22-2397, 2023 WL 4112142 (8th Cir. June 22, 2023).5United States v. Blackbird, No. CR 05-174-GF-BMM-1, 2024 WL 3552446, at *2-3 (D. Mont. July 26, 2024);United States v. Gallardo, No. 19-CR-2608-GPC, 2024 WL 4879493, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024); UnitedStates v. Johnson, No. ELH-99-352, 2023 WL 7130950, at *18-20 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2023); United States v.Woods, No. 3:12-40-JFA, 2023 WL 4768345, at *7 (D.S.C. July 26, 2023); United States v. Hernandez, No.5:15-cr-00033, 2022 WL 17905070, at *2-3 (S.D.W.V. Dec. 22, 2022); United States v. Dunich-Kolb, No.14-150 (KM), 2022 WL 580919, at *3-7 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2022); United States v. Johnson, No. 05-cr-00167-WHA-5, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209833, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2021); United States v. Ball, No. 06-cr-20465,2021 WL 2351088, at *3-5 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2021).6United States v. Carter, No. 13-CR-900 (JMF0, 14-CR-501 (JMF), 2025 WL 1865278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July7, 2025); United States v. Manna, No. 88-00239 (RK), 2025 WL 1122286, at *4-6 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2025);United States v. Gaddy, No. CR 488-032, 2025 WL 815632, at *3-6 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2025); UnitedStates v. Trucchio, No. 8:04-cr-348-CEH-TGW, 2024 WL 4869547, at *6-7 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2024); UnitedStates v. Cunningham, No. CR 12-60-GF-BMM, 2024 WL 50908, at *2-3 (D. Mont. Jan. 4, 2024); UnitedStates v. Stevens, No. 94-00002-KD, 2023 WL 3236892, at *3-17 (S.D. Ala. May 3, 2023); United States v.Garcia-Gonzalez, No. 19CR4809-AJB, 2022 WL 22894879, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022); United States v.Robinson, No. 89 CR 908-31, 2022 WL 4119800, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2022); United States v. Howard,No. 1:04-CR-5234 AWI, 2022 WL 2670032, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2022); DeFoggi, No. 8:13CR105,2022 WL 1785435, at *6 (reversed on appeal); United States v. Figueroa, No. 07-CR-6219-FPG, 2022 WL167536, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022); United States v. Hicks, No. 2:05-cr-00040, 2022 WL 138690, at*3 (S.D.W.V. Jan. 14, 2022); United States v. Bronner, No. 3:19-cr-109-MMH-JRK, 3:17-cr-063-MMH-JRK,2021 WL 5798302, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2021); United States v. Jones, No. 7:11CR00039-006, 2021 WL3630459, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2021); United States v. Douglas, No. 10-171-4 (JDB), 2021 WL 214563,at *4-7 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2021).7Defendant also argues that there is an internal conflict within the PSR as to section 66 and section 67. Thesetwo sections are not conflicting but rather address two different concepts. Section 66 sets forth the legally
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (2) CLINT TRAVIS..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8authorized term of probation for a misdemeanor offense which is “not more than 5 years” under 18 U.S.C.§ 3561(c)(2). Section 67 sets forth that a sentence of probation is not authorized in Zone C and D of theSentencing Guidelines Table under U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1. Because the sentencing guidelines are no longermandatory, the Court can order a probation sentence even if a defendant falls within Zone C or D.8Counsel's argument that the Court is authorized to reduce Defendant's sentence to time-served becauseapplying Amendment 821 reduces the “guideline range” without considering § 5G1.1(a) is simply contraryto the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), which explains that in considering an amended guidelinerange the Court should “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” Counsel's suggestion ofa meaningful substantive difference between the terms “Guideline Range” and “Guideline Sentence” in thiscontext is simply without any basis in the applicable law. See also United States v. Trobee, 551 F.3d 835,839 (8th Cir. 2009) (“For those situations in which the mandatory minimum exceeds the range for the entireoffense level, the ‘guideline sentence’ would thus be the same as the ‘guideline range,’ even if it involves a‘range’ of only one number.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. McFarlin, 535 F.3d 808,810 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[B]ecause the statutory maximum was lower than the guideline range, the sentencingguideline range became sixty months.”).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access