govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_19-cr-00333-0

Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

MARCUS LEE RICARDO WILSON,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cr-170-1
1:19-cr-333-1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lindsey A. Freeman, United States District Judge.
Marcus Lee Ricardo Wilson is a federal inmate serving a total term of
imprisonment of 126 months. B efore the Court is Mr. Wilson’s pro se motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(1)(A). Case No. 1:13-cr-170-1, Dkt.
75; Case No. 1:19- cr-333-1, Dkt. 26. 1 The Government has responded , opposing the
motion. Dkt. 28. Because Mr. Wilson has not established an extraordinary and
compelling reason and because the 18 U.SC. § 3553(a) factors weigh against release, the
motion will be denied.

1 Mr. Wilson filed the identical motion for compassionate release in both cases. Unless
specified, references in this Memorandum Opinion and Order to documents filed with
the Court in CM/ECF refer to documents filed in Case No. 1:19-cr-333-1.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 20, 2013, Mr. Wilson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Case No. 1:13-cr-170-1, Dkt. 13 at 1. Mr.
Wilson was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment followed by three years of
supervised release.2 Case No. 1:13-cr-170-1, Dkts. 13, 39. Mr. Wilson began his term of
supervised release on September 6, 2018, but was arrested just months later on January
9, 2019, after a search of his home produced over 187 grams of marijuana, six pills, 27
grams of crack cocaine, scales and a grinder, a Taurus 9mm handgun with magazine and
ammunition, a Taurus .45 handgun with magazine containing ammunition , a Smith &
Wesson SD-40 VE handgun with magazine containing ammunition, and over $ 4,000.
Dkt. 10, ¶ 8. In an interview with the police, Mr. Wilson said that the Taurus .45 handgun
and the cocaine base belonged to him. Id., ¶ 9.
Mr. Wilson was subsequently charged in Case No. 1:19-cr-333-1 with possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C )
and being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and

2 Mr. Wilson was originally sentenced to 74 months in prison and three years of
supervised release, but the term of imprisonment was subsequently reduced to 70
months. Case No. 1:13-cr-170-1, Dkts. 13 at 2; 39 at 1.

924(a)(2). Dkt. 1. He pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to both counts and was
sentenced to 102 months of imprisonment. 3 Dkts. 5, 12. Mr. Wilson’s probation officer
also petitioned for revocation of Mr. Wilson’s supervised release in Case No. 1:13-cr-170-
1. Case No. 1:13-cr-170-1, Dkt 43. After a revocation hearing, the Court ruled that Mr.
Wilson had violated the terms and conditions of his release and revoked Mr. Wilson’s
supervised release . Case No. 1:13- cr-170-1, Dkt. 62 at 2-3. The Court sentenced Mr.
Wilson to 24 months of imprisonment, the time to run consecutively to his 102- month
term in Case No. 1:19-cr-333-1, for a total term of 126 months of imprisonment. Id. at 2.
On November 23, 2020, Mr. Wilson filed his first motion for compassionate release
seeking a reduction of sentence based on his increased risk of serious illness or death
from COVID-19 due to his various health issues. Dkt. 15. The motion was denied by the
Court. Dkt. 20. On June 27, 2024, Mr. Wilson filed a motion seeking a reduction of
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive changes lowering the
applicable sentencing guideline range, which was also denied.4 Dkts. 18, 24. On January
16, 2026, Mr. Wilson filed the motion for compassionate release presently before the

3 Mr. Wilson was sentenced to 102 months of imprisonment on each count, the sentences
to run concurrently. Dkt. 12 at 2.

4 The probation office determined Mr. Wilson did not qualify under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
because he was in custody on revocation of supervised release, not the original sentence,
and because Amendment 821 did not lower his sentencing guideline range. Dkt. 20. The
Government as well as counsel for Mr. Wilson agreed that Mr. Wilson was ineligi ble for
a reduction under § 3582(c). Dkts. 21, 23.

Court. See Case No. 1:13-cr-170-1, Dkt. 75; Case No. 1:19- cr-333-1, Dkt. 26. Mr. Wilson
argues he should be released because he needs to act as a caregiver for his minor daughter
and because of his medical issues. Dkt. 26. The Government has responded and opposes
the motion. Dkt. 28. Mr. Wilson is 39 years old, presently incarcerated at Allenwood FCI,
and has a current expected release date May 6, 2028. See BOP Inmate Locator,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/(last visited May 12, 2026).
ANALYSIS
While the Court is sympathetic to Mr. Wilson’s concerns regarding his health and
particularly his daughter ’s care, on the information presented Mr. Wilson fails to
demonstrate an extraordinary and compelling reason sufficient to upend the finality of
his sentence and justify his early release. Generally , a court may not modify a term of
imprisonment after sentencing. See United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 653 (4th Cir. 2024).
However, a court may modify a sentence in narrow circumstances when expressly
permitted by statute . See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) . Relevant here, under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A) a court may reduce a sentence and grant what is known as compassionate
release when: (1) an extraordinary and compelling reason supports a reduction; (2) the
reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission; and (3) the sentencing factors in § 3553(a) weigh in favor of release. Davis,
99 F.4th at 654. The policy statements generally restate the requirements of §
3582(c)(1)(A) but also require that “the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other

person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)(2).
The policy statements also provide guidance regarding what constitutes “extraordinary
and compelling reasons,” with a list of circumstances that may warrant granting
compassionate release. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b). A defendant has the burden of
establishing the circumstances warranting his release. United States v. Perez , No. 1:18-
CR-303-2, 2024 WL 1014161, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2024) (citing United States v. Hargrove,
30 F.4th 189, 195 (4th Cir. 2022) ). Even once a defendant shows an extraordinary and
compelling reason, a court has discretion to deny the motion if consideration of the §
3553(a) factors weigh against relief. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir.
2022).
First, however, the Court must assess whether Mr. Wilson’s motion is properly
before it. Under § 3582, a defendant must exhaust administrative remedies before
seeking relief from the court . S ee 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Exhaustion is not
jurisdictional and is waived unless invoked. See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126,
129-30 (4th Cir. 2021). Mr. Wilson filed a request for relief with the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) in October of 2020. Dkt. 28-2. The Government acknowledges Mr. Wilson filed
this request for administrative relief and concedes exhaustion.5 Dkt. 28 at 5. T herefore,
the Court will proceed to the merits of Mr. Wilson’s motion.

5 Mr. Wilson’s request for administrative relief with the BOP was filed over five years
prior to the instant motion and approximately 40 days before his first motion for

I. Mr. Wilson Has Failed to Establish an Extraordinary and Compelling Reason
that Supports Compassionate Release

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) requires (1) the court to find an extraordinary and compelling
reason to support a reduction and (2) that any reduction be “consistent with the
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission .” As the Fourth
Circuit has stated, these requirements “are supposed to work together.” United States v.
Burleigh, 145 F.4th 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2025) . Section 3582(c)(1)(A) does not define an
“extraordinary and compelling reason,” but the policy statements provide guidance with
a list of circumstances that constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant
compassionate release. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b). Applicable here, the policy statements
include certain medical and family circumstances of the defendant as extraordinary and
compelling reasons that may support a reduction of sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)
& (3). For the reasons discussed below, however, Mr. Wilson cannot meet his burden to
demonstrate that either reason constitutes an extraordinary and compelling circumstance
warranting early release. Perez, 2024 WL 1014161, at *1.

compassionate release. Dkts. 28-2, 15, 26. Because the Government concedes exhaustion,
Dkt. 28 at 5, any question of whether the administrative request made years earlie r
satisfies the threshold exhaustion requirement for the present motion is not an issue
before the Court. See Muhammad, 16 F.4th at 130 (a claim of exhaustion must be invoked
by the Government or is waived).

A. Mr. Wilson cannot establish his family circumstances are an
extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.

Mr. Wilson argues that he should be granted compassionate release because he
needs to act as the caregiver for his minor daughter, Nyaziah Wilson, but he fails to
demonstrate a reduction should be granted for this purpose . The presentence
investigation report confirms that Mr. Wilson has a daughter, Nyaziah Wilson, who in
2019 resided with her mother Rondell Nelson in Rockingham, NC. Dkt. 10, ¶ 54. Based
on that information, Ms. Wilson would be approximately 16 years old a t this time. Mr.
Wilson states that Ms. Wilson’s mother passed away in December of 2025, and he is now
her only legal guardian. Dkt. 26. Mr. Wilson asserts that he needs to be present because
his daughter is “lacking support” and “suffering trauma.” Id.
The Sentencing Commission policy statement recognizes the care of a child may
be an extraordinary and compelling circumstance supporting a reduction of sentence in
the case of:
The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child
or the defendant’s child who is 18 years of age or older and incapable of
self-care because of a mental or physical disability or a medical condition.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A).
Mr. Wilson is unable to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for a
reduction of sentence on this basis. First, as the Government argues, Dkt. 28 at 8-9, Mr.
Wilson has not provided adequate information to support his claim. Mr. Wilson makes

broad statements that his daughter is fending for herself and soon will not have a place
to live but does not provide any details about her circumstances or evidence to support
his claim. See Dkt. 26. Mr. Wilson has not explained where Ms. Wilson has been staying
or who has been caring for her since her mother’s death. In fact, the Court only has Mr.
Wilson’s assertion that Ms. Wilson ’s mother died and that Ms. Wilson was being cared
for by her mother at the time of the death. Mr. Wilson has not presented anything to
substantiate these claims.6
Nor has Mr. Wilson shown that Ms. Wilson needs him to be her caregiver. The
Sentencing Commission policy statement addressing the care of a minor child does not
specify a defendant must be the “only available caregiver” as it does in other parts of the
policy statement. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(B) -(D). However, when addressing such
claims, courts, including other judges in this district, have generally considered whether
another caregiver is available. See, e.g., United States v. Holman , No. 12-cr-72, 2025 WL
3496564, * 2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2025) (collecting cases); United States v. Cates, No. 20-cr-223,
2023 WL 167409, at *3- 4 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2023) (collecting cases) . Mr. Wilson has not

6 The Court has located a December 2025 obituary for a Rondell Nelson in Rockingham ,
NC. S ee https://richmondobserver.com/stories/obituary- rondell-shellette-nelson,77146
(last visited June 3, 2026). However, the obituary only generally refers to family and does
not list specific surviving family members. While it is likely this is Ms. Wilson’s mother,
it is not possible to affirm that fact on the information before the Court.

addressed the availability of any other family members or explained why another family
member cannot act as caregiver, particularly if one is already doing so.
Further, there is nothing to advise that Mr. Wilson would be a suitable caregiver
and therefore should have his sentence reduced for that purpose . Mr. Wilson has been
incarcerated for large periods of his daughter’s life, and his criminal history shows
constant involvement with drugs and guns. See Dkt. 10, ¶¶ 30-41. When arrested for the
current offense, Mr. Wilson had illegal narcotics, paraphernalia associated with drug
trafficking, and loaded weapons throughout his home . Mr. Wilson has been in and out
of custody since around the time his daughter was born, see id., ¶¶ 37-41, and except for
a brief four-month period he has been incarcerated since she was four years old. Id. There
is no indication Mr. Wilson has ever parented his daughter or evidence showing whether
they have maintained contact while he has been incarcerated. Consequently, on the
information before the Court Mr. Wilson has failed to establish an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release based on the need to act as a caregiver for his daughter.
B. Mr. Wilson cannot establish that his medical circumstances are an
extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.

Mr. Wilson also argues that he should be granted compassionate release because
of his medical issues, Dkt. 26, but Mr. Wilson is unable to establish an extraordinary and
compelling reason f or a reduction of sentence on this basis . Mr. Wilson states that he
suffers “from health issues that include [T]ype 2 Diabetes that [r]equires me to [h]ave to

take insulin 3 times a day.” Dkt. 26. He lists various medicines and supplements he takes
for his medical issues, specifically, aspirin, magnesium oxide, Empagliflozin, Vitamin D,
and potassium . Id. However, Mr. Wilson does not explain why he believes these
circumstances are grounds for compassionate release.
The Sentencing Commission policy statement s provide that medical
circumstances may amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction if:
(B) The defendant is—
(i) suﬀering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(ii) suﬀering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or
(iii) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of
the aging process,
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to
provide self -care within the environment of a correctional
facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.
(C) The defendant is suﬀering from a medical condition that requires long-
term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without
which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B )-(C).
7 Mr. Wilson has not demonstrated that any of these
circumstances apply to him.

7 The policy statements also recognize an extraordinary and compelling reason when a
defendant is suffering from a terminal illness or when t he defendant is housed in a
correctional facility affected by a public health emergency o r outbreak of infectiou s
disease. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(1)(A) & (D). Mr. Wilson has not claimed, nor do the facts
support, that either of these circumstances are applicable in his case.

Mr. Wilson refers to his diabetes but does not indicate the condition limits his
ability to provide self-care or that he requires specialized treatment he cannot receive in
BOP custody . The medical records indicate h is health is being monitored and he is
receiving regular and appropriate treatment. See generally Dkt. 29. He has been
prescribed insulin and Empagliflozin for his diabetes .8 Id. at 8. The records show Mr.
Wilson is only 60 percent compliant with the prescribed medicine, but he nonetheless
may be able to discontinue insulin in the future if the oral medication provides adequate
control. Id. at 6. Mr. Wilson does not otherwise identify any particular health complaints,
claim that his health is declining, or claim that he is unable to provide self-care within the
prison environment. 9 Accordingly, Mr. Wilson has failed to establish his medical
circumstances are an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence.
II. The Section 3553(a) Factors Weigh Against Granting a Reduction of Sentence
As Mr. Wilson fails to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason that will
support compassionate release, the Court does not need to consider whether the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors weigh in favor of a reduction. See United States v. Hargrove , 30 F.4th

8 Empagliflozin is used to treat Type 2 diabetes. See https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-
supplements/empagliflozin-oral-route/description/drg-20113010 (last visited June 3,
2026).

9 Mr. Wilson’s medical records show that he suffers from several other chronic health
conditions such as hyperlipidemia, tachycardia, and gastroesophageal reflux disease but
the records also indicate these conditions are monitored and treated by BOP health
personnel. Dkt. 29 at 6-9.

189, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2022) (a court may find a defendant eligible for compassionate release
only after finding that such a reduction is warranted by extraordinary and compelling
reasons). However, even if Mr. Wilson had shown an extraordinary and compelling
reason, the § 3553(a) factors weigh against granting relief in this case.
Section 3553(a) requires a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. Section 3553(a) directs the Court to weigh
factors including the nature of the offense, defendant’s history, the need for a sentence to
impose just punishment, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to protect the
public and deter crime, and the need to provide a defendant with rehabilitative training
or treatment. A court may also consider post- sentencing facts in the record such as
evidence of behavior or rehabilitation while incarcerated. See United States v. Martin, 916
F.3d 389, 397 (4th Cir. 2019).
In making his motion, Mr. Wilson notes he has enrolled in many BOP programs
and continues to work on his rehabilitation. Dkt. 26. He states he is participating in the
Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) and trying to make better choices and
surround himself with the right types of people. Id. The Court recognizes that Mr. Wilson
has taken some positive steps towards rehabilitation while incarcerated. The records
show he is working towards his GED and has taken over ﬁfty BOP courses, including
programs on behavior modiﬁcation and problem solving, as well as courses such as
forklift certiﬁcation which may help him ﬁnd employment upon release. Dkt. 28-3 at 1-

2. While Mr. Wilson has received three disciplinary infractions while incarcerated, he has
not received any infractions in the last three years. See Dkt. 28-4.
Nonetheless, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors overall weigh s against a
reduction of sentence. Mr. Wilson’s eﬀorts towards rehabilitation are encouraging, but
taking classes and working to improve oneself is expected of an inmate, not evidence of
extraordinary behavior. See United States v. Mitchell, Case No. 1:21-cr-72, 2025 WL 674347,
at * 3 (M.D.N.C. March 3, 2025) (citing United States v. Logan, 532 F. Supp. 3d 725, 735 (D.
Minn. 2021)). This evidence of rehabilitation cannot overcome other factors.
First, the circumstances of the oﬀense weigh against a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1). Mr. Wilson , only months into his period of supervised release for prior
convictions involving drugs and illegal possession of weapons , was arrested after the
police searched his home and found numerous loaded weapons , drugs, scales and a
grinder, and over $4,000. Dkt. 10, ¶¶ 5 -8. These circumstances show a repeated and
blatant disregard for the law, and his propensity to rely on weapons in furtherance of his
drug crimes presents a danger to the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
Second, Mr. Wilson’s criminal history also weighs decidedly against a reduction.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Mr. Wilson has a lengthy criminal history, beginning in his late
teens, which includes multiple prior felony convictions for drug and gun crimes. Dkt. 10,
¶¶ 30-41. Most concerning, his history shows a record of poor performance on probation
and that periods of incarceration and supervision have done little to curb additional

14
criminal behavior. In fact, d espite receiving a 70- month term of imprisonment for his
prior federal convictions, Mr. Wilson re-oﬀended almost immediately once released. Id.,
¶ 41. This history signals a substantial risk of recidivism. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2); United
States v. Gardner, No. 23 -6450, 2023 WL 4839592, at *1 (4th Cir. 2023) (unpublished)
(aﬃrming district court’s denial of a pro se compassionate release motion after
considering “recidivism risk” and other factors).
Accordingly, the § 3553(a) factors weigh against a reduction of sentence. A
reduced sentence would not reﬂect the seriousness of Mr. Wilson’s behavior, promote
respect for the law, provide adequate deterrence, or protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). The Court concludes Mr. Wilson’s current sentence is “suﬃcient, but not greater
than necessary” and nothing presented by Mr. Wilson shows the type of extraordinary
circumstances required to upend his ﬁnal sentence and grant compassionate release.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wilson’s motion for compassionate release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(1)(A) , Case No. 1:13- cr-170-1, Dkt. 75; Case No. 1:19- cr-
333-1, Dkt. 26, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the 16t h day of June, 2026.
___________________________________
LINDSEY A. FREEMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Passage view · GavelSight