govinfo:USCOURTS-tned-3_14-cr-00089-14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No.: 3:14-CR-89-TAV-JEM-2 
 ) 
RAYMOND RACEY, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
This matter is before the Court on defe ndant’s pro se motion for a compassionate 
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) [Doc. 806]. The Federal Defender Services of 
East Tennessee filed a notice of no intention to supplement [Doc. 807]. The government 
responded in opposition [Doc. 808]. For the reasons set forth more fully below, 
defendant’s motions for compassionate re lease under § 3582(c)(1)(A) [Doc. 806] is 
DENIED. 
I. Background 
On June 11, 2015, de fendant pled guilty to conspira cy to distribute 50 grams or 
more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) 
(Count 1), conspiracy to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation 
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (Count 2), and possession of materials used 
to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) (Count 4) [Docs. 
282, 285, 288]. The Honorable Pamela L. Reeves ultimately sentenced defendant to a total 
term of 240 months’ imprisonment [Doc. 427; Doc. 693]. Accordin g to the Bureau of PageID
#: <pageID>
 
2 
Prisons’ website, defendant is presently sche duled for release on December 11, 2030. 
Inmate Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ 
(accessed June 3, 2026). 
II. Legal Standard 
A court generally lacks “the authority to change or modify [a sentence, once 
imposed,] unless such authority is expressly granted by statute.” United States v. 
Thompson, 714 F.3d 946, 948 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323, 
326 (6th Cir. 2010)). “O ne exception—commonly referred to as ‘compassionate 
release’—permits the court to reduce a term of imprisonment if it finds, among other 
things, that ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.’” Rutherford 
v. United States, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (2026) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). 
The First Step Act of 2018’s amendment of § 3582(c)(1)(A) revised this exception. First 
Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018); Rutherford, slip op. 
at 4. Prior to the First Step Act, a distri ct court could grant relie f under § 3582(c)(1)(A) 
only on motion of the Director of the Bur eau of Prisons. Now a court may modify a 
defendant’s sentence upon a mo tion by a defendant if the defendant has exhausted all 
administrative rights to appeal a failure of th e Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the 
defendant’s behalf or after the lapse of 30 da ys from the receipt of such a request by the 
warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). PageID
#: <pageID>
 
3 
If the defendant surmounts this preliminary hurdle, the Court may grant a sentence 
reduction “after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a) to the ex tent that they are 
applicable” if it finds: 
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or 
 
(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in 
prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense 
or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a 
determination has been made by the Dire ctor of the Bureau of Prisons that 
the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the 
community, as provided under section 3142(g); 
 
and that such a reduction is consiste nt with applicable policy statements 
issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . . 
 
Id. Defendant seeks relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) [Doc. 806]. 
If the exhaustion requirement is satisfied, courts must then follow the statute’s 
three-step test: 
At step one, a court must “find[ ]” whether “extraordi nary and compelling 
reasons warrant” a sentence reduction. At step two, a court must “find[ ]” 
whether “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements 
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” The Commission’s policy statement 
on compassionate release resides in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Thus, if § 1B1.13 is 
still “applicable,” courts must “fo llow the Commission’s instructions in 
[§ 1B1.13] to determine the prisoner's eligibility for a sentence modification 
and the extent of the reduction authorized.” At step three, “§ 3582(c)[(1)(A)] 
instructs a court to consider any app licable § 3553(a) factors and determine 
whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by [steps one and two] is 
warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” 
 
United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1107–08 (6th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted). 
In considering a compassionate release moti on, “district courts may deny compassionate 
release motions when any of the three prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking and PageID
#: <pageID>
 
4 
do not need to address the others” but must “address all three steps” if granting such a 
motion. United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021). 
III. Analysis 
A. Exhaustion 
The Court first examines whether defe ndant has satisfied § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s 
exhaustion requirement, which is a mandatory prerequisite to consideration of a 
compassionate release request on the merits. United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833–34 
(6th Cir. 2020). “When ‘prope rly invoked,’ mandatory claim-processing rules ‘must be 
enforced.’” Id. at 834 (quoting Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi. , 138 S. Ct. 
13, 17 (2017)). The only exceptions to such a mandatory claim-processing rule are waiver 
and forfeiture. Id. (citing United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002)). 
In this case, the government concedes that the exhaustion requirement has been 
satisfied [Doc. 808, p. 2]. Accordingly, the Court will pro ceed to evaluate defendant’s 
compassionate release request according to the three-step test explained above. 
B. Extraordinary a nd Compelling Reasons 
 
Turning to whether defendant has set fo rth extraordinary and compelling grounds 
for relief, the Court first notes that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 
previously held that “[i]n cases where incarcerated persons file motions for compassionate 
release, federal judges may skip step two of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry and have full 
discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’ without consulting the policy statement 
of § 1B1.13.” United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th Cir. 2020). This was so PageID
#: <pageID>
 
5 
because the applicable policy statement, United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13, as 
written at the time, did not contemplate inma te-filed motions for compassionate release, 
but instead, was limited to circumstances where the Bureau of Prisons filed a motion on an 
inmate’s behalf. Id. at 1109–10; see also U.S. SENT’G GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.13 
(U.S. SENT’G COMM’N 2018). 
However, the Sentencing Commission amende d the policy statement in § 1B1.13, 
effective November 1, 2023, to encompass inmate-filed motions for compassionate release. 
U.S. SENT’G GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.13 (U.S. SENT’G COMM’N 2023). It thus appears 
that the Sixth Circuit’s prior ru ling that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement to 
inmate-filed motions for compassionate release is no longer consistent with the Guidelines. 
See United States v. Nash, No. 23-3635, 2024 WL 1979067, at *3 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2024) 
(noting the amendment to § 1B1.13 and stating that “prior to [the date of amendment], no 
guideline policy statement applied to comp assionate-release mo tions brought by 
defendants, and a district cour t could deny a defendant-filed motion without reference to 
any policy statement”); see also United States v. Ringgold , No. ELH-17-232, 2023 WL 
7410895, at *5–6 (D. Md. Nov. 8, 2023) (“[I]t appears that the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion 
in McCoy, 981 F.3d at 281, to th e effect that ‘§ 1B1.13 is not an ‘applicable’ policy 
statement,’ is no longer consistent with th e Guidelines. This is because the Policy 
Statement is now expressly applicable to de fendant-filed motions pur suant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).”). However, “[t]he new policy statement largely preserves the discretion PageID
#: <pageID>
 
6 
district courts held to consider any extr aordinary and compelling reason for release.” 
United States v. Davis, No. 3:20-cr-16, 2023 WL 7356579, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 7, 2023). 
As amended, § 1B1.13(b) states that “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons exist 
under any of the following circumstances or a combination thereof,” and discusses when 
the medical circumstances of the defendant , the age of the defe ndant, the family 
circumstances of the defendant, the defendant’s victimization in custody, and other reasons 
may constitute extraordin ary circumstances. U.S. SENT’G GUIDELINES MANUAL 
§ 1B1.13(b)(1)–(6). 
Recently, the Supreme Court provided some guidance as to the meaning of the term 
“extraordinary and compelling.” “The term ‘extraordinary’ means ‘most unusual,’ ‘far 
from common,’ or ‘having little or no precedent.’” Rutherford, slip op. at 8. 
“‘Compelling,’ meanwhile, means ‘tending to convince or convert by or as if by 
forcefulness of evidence.’” Id. “Putting these definitions together ‘extraordinary and 
compelling’ reasons for compa ssionate release are those that are especially unusual and 
convincing.” Id. at 8–9. Thus “[w]hile the terms ‘extraordinary’ and ‘compelling’ leave 
room for judgment, they are not so flexible as to encompass any consideration.” Id. at 11. 
Rather, “[t]heir meaning depends on context: A reason is ‘extraordinary’ and ‘compelling’ 
only if it is sufficiently unusual and convincing to ‘warrant’ compassionate release.” Id. 
In his motion, defendant argues that based on a change of law, if he were sentenced 
today, he would not qualify for an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. 
§ 841(b)(1)(A), and that such legal change constitutes an extraord inary and compelling PageID
#: <pageID>
 
7 
ground for relief [Doc. 806, p. 2]. Defendant explicitly re lies on § 1B1.13(b)(6) of the 
Sentencing Guidelines [Id.]. That section of the amended policy statement provides that 
non-retroactive changes in law can constitute an extraordin ary and compelling reason for 
release under certain conditions. See U.S. SENT’G GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.13(b)(6). 
However, in April 2025, the Sixth Circuit invalidated section 1B1.13(b)(6). United States 
v. Bricker, No. 24-3286, 2025 WL 1166016, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). Based in part 
on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 
603 U.S. 369 (2024), which re duced the interpretive deferenc e afforded to agencies, the 
Sixth Circuit determined that the Commissi on “overstepped its authority and issued a 
policy statement that is plainly unreasonabl e under the statute and in conflict with the 
separation of powers.” Bricker, 2025 WL 1166016, at *1; see also Moctezuma-Reyes v. 
Garland, 124 F.4th 416, 420 (6th Cir. 2024) (clarifying when courts should independently 
interpret statutes). 
In reaching its conclusion, the Bricker majority clarified th at the Sixth Circuit’s 
decision in United States v. McCall , 56 F.4th 1048 (6th Ci r. 2022) (en banc), which 
predates the amended policy statement, remains the law of this Circuit. In contrast to the 
policy statement contained in § 1B1.13(b)(6) of the Guidelines, the McCall court held that 
the fact “that a defendant might receive a diffe rent sentence today than he received years 
ago represents the routine business of our legal system” and “cannot supply an 
extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a lawful sentence whose term Congress 
enacted, and the President signed, into law.” Id. at 1065. In other words, because Loper PageID
#: <pageID>
 
8 
Bright reduced courts’ deference to Co mmission policy statements, and the Bricker 
majority held that section 1B1.13(b)(6) is “plainly unre asonable,” “we [are] bound by 
McCall’s views on the plain meaning of ‘e xtraordinary and compelling.’” Bricker, 2025 
WL 1166016, at *1–*9 (citing United States v. Ferguson , 868 F.3d 514, 515 (6th Cir. 
2017)). 
More recently, the Supreme Court addressed this issue, and held 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.” Rutherford, slip op. 
at 16. The Court stated that , to the extent the Sentenci ng Guidelines’ policy statement 
counsels otherwise, “the Commission’s policy statement is invalid.” Id. The Court 
specifically concluded that the disparity creat ed by the amendment of § 924(c) does not 
satisfy § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s “extraordinary and compelling” requirement. Id. at 9. The Court 
reasoned that “[f]ar from ‘extraordinary,’ nonretroactive amendments to criminal penalties 
are the norm.” Id. Further, the Court stated that “[ i]t is hard to see how Congress’s 
deliberate decision not to extend newly reduced penalties to those already sentenced could 
be a convincing reason that ‘warrants’ a reduction.” Id. (emphasis in original) (alteration 
omitted). Further, the Court found that the nonretroactive change to § 924(c)’s sentencing 
scheme also “fall[s] well outside the heartla nd of compassionate re lease, which has long 
been defined by a prisoner’s personal circumstances.” Id. at 10. Accordingly, the Supreme 
Court concluded that the disparity that results from Congress’s decision to leave a sentence 
untouched cannot serve as an extraordinary and comp elling ground for relief under PageID
#: <pageID>
 
9 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Id. at 17. Although Rutherford was explicitly decided in the context of 
the changes to the so-called “stacking” of § 924(c) sentences, its rationale applies equally 
to other nonretroactive legal changes. 
In light of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Bricker and the Supreme Court’s decision 
in Rutherford, it is clear that the Court is not to consider non-retroactive changes in law as 
an extraordinary and compelling ground for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, 
defendant has not established that any extr aordinary and compelling grounds support his 
request for compassionate release. 
IV. Conclusion 
For the reasons set forth more fully abov e, defendant’s motion for compassionate 
release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) [Doc. 806] is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
s/ Thomas A. Varlan 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight