govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_05-cr-00269-4

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
United States of America, 
 
  Plaintiff, 
 
v.        Case No. 05-cr-269 (JNE) 
        O R D E R  
Gordon David Reese, 
 
  Defendant. 
 
This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release 
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
1  For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the 
motion. 
A “court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed” 
except in limited circumstances, which include: 
[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of 
Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant 
has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure 
of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s 
behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a 
request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever 
is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may 
impose a term of probation or supervised release with or 
without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion 
of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the 
 
1 The government filed three motions for an  extension of time to file a response to 
Defendant’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion.  Before he received the third, Defendant moved to 
deny the government an additional extension and for a ruling on the existing record.  
After the Court granted the government’s third motion and he received the government’s 
response, Defendant moved for an extension of time to file a reply and filed a reply.  The 
government’s first two motions for an extension are denied as moot.  Defendant’s motion 
to deny the government an additional extension and for a ruling on the existing record is 
denied.  His motion for an extension of time to file a reply is granted, and his reply is 
timely filed. 
CASE 0:05-cr-00269-JNE-RLE     Doc. 182     Filed 06/11/26     Page 1 of 4
 
 2
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 
applicable, if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling 
reasons warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction 
is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 
Sentencing Commission . . . . 
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see United States v. Rodriguez-Mendez, 65 F.4th 1000, 1002 (8th 
Cir. 2023).  The defendant bears the burden to demonstrate that a sentence reduction is 
warranted.  United States v. Avalos Banderas, 39 F.4th 1059, 1062 (8th Cir. 2022). 
According to the applicable policy statement, “the court may reduce a term of 
imprisonment . . . if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the 
extent that they are applicable, the court determines that” (1) “[e]xtraordinary and 
compelling reasons warrant the reduction”; (2) “[t]he defendant is not a danger to the 
safety of any other person or to the community”; and (3) “[t]he reduction is consistent 
with this policy statement.”  U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a).  The policy statement details 
circumstances under which “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons exist.”  U.S.S.G. 
§ 1B1.13(b).  They include: 
If a defendant received an unusually long sentence and 
has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a 
change in the law (other than an amendment to the Guidelines 
Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be 
considered in determining whether the defendant presents an 
extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such 
change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence 
being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time 
the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the 
defendant’s individualized circumstances. 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6).  “Except as provided in subsection (b)(6), a change in the law 
(including an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) 
CASE 0:05-cr-00269-JNE-RLE     Doc. 182     Filed 06/11/26     Page 2 of 4
 
 3
shall not be considered for purposes of determining whether an extraordinary and 
compelling reason exists under this policy statement.”  U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(c). 
“[C]onsider[ing] whether the sentencing disparity created by Congress’s 
nonretroactive change to § 924(c)’s mandatory penalties can serve as an ‘extraordinary 
and compelling reaso[n]’ that ‘warrant[s]’ a reduction,” the Supreme Court recently held 
that it cannot.  Rutherford v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1326 (2026) (third and fourth 
alteration in original).  “The statutory text and structure make clear that Congress’s 
nonretroactive change to § 924(c)—considered by itself or in combination with other 
factors—cannot make a prisoner eligible for compassionate release.  To the extent that it 
counsels otherwise, the Commission’s policy statement is invalid.”  Id. at 1335. 
Defendant relied on Amendment 833 to the Sentencing Guidelines to demonstrate 
that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.  The Court 
declines to consider Amendment 833 for present purposes because it has not been made 
retroactive.  See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).  Defendant has not demonstrated that 
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.  His § 3582(c)(1)(A) 
motion is denied. 
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated 
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
1. Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release Under 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) [Docket No. 169] is DENIED. 
2. The government’s motions for an extension of time to file a response 
[Docket Nos. 171 and 173] are DENIED as moot. 
CASE 0:05-cr-00269-JNE-RLE     Doc. 182     Filed 06/11/26     Page 3 of 4
 
 4
3. Defendant’s motion to deny the government an additional extension of time 
and for a ruling on the existing record [Docket No. 179] is DENIED. 
4. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply [Docket No. 
180] is GRANTED. 
Dated: June 11, 2026 
s/Joan N. Ericksen  
JOAN N. ERICKSEN 
United States District Judge 
CASE 0:05-cr-00269-JNE-RLE     Doc. 182     Filed 06/11/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight