govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_05-cr-00085-15

: 
 
1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI  
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  ) 
) 
Plaintiff,     ) 
) 
vs.      ) Case No: 4:05CR00085-HEA-1 
       ) FILED UNDER SEAL 
) 
OTIS MCALLISTER,    ) 
) 
Defendant.     ) 
 
 
OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER 
 
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate 
Release/Reduction of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, [Doc. No. 441-1].1  For 
the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. 
BACKGROUND 
On February 10, 2005, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment 
against Defendant.  Subsequently, a federal grand jury returned a 24-count 
 
1 Defendant has also filed a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations under Local Rule 
4.01(D), [Doc. No. 438], a motion for appointment of counsel for the purposes of assisting with 
his motion for compassionate release, [Doc. No. 439], and a motion for leave to file his motion 
under seal, [Doc. No. 440].  Additionally, the Federal Public Defender has moved to hold 
Defendant’s pro se filings in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 
Rutherford v. United States.  Defendant’s motion for leave to exceed the page limitations and 
motion for leave to file the motion under seal are granted.  Defendant’s motion for appointment 
of counsel is denied as moot.  Finally, Defendant’s motion to hold his pro se filings in abeyance 
pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Rutherford is denied as moot, as the 
Court issued an opinion in Rutherford on May 28, 2026.  See Rutherford v. United States, No. 
24-820, 2026 WL 1485535 (U.S. May 28, 2026).
 
Case: 4:05-cr-00085-ERW     Doc. #:  444     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
: 
 
2 
 
indictment against Defendant and seven other individuals.  Defendant was charged 
in all 25 counts of the indictment.  Count I of the superseding indictment charged 
all eight individuals in a five-year conspiracy to commit 18 bank robberies, 
involving 22 victims and taking over $1,400,000 from the financial institutions.  
The other 24 charges against Defendant are detailed in the Court’s denial of 
Defendant’s motion to reconsider its denial of Defendant’s previous motion for 
compassionate release and include 12 separate bank robbery incidents and 
corresponding brandishing charges.  See [Doc. No. 430] at 2-4.  All of Defendant’s 
co-conspirators entered pleas of guilty.  Defendant elected to proceed to trial.  At 
trial, the Government presented evidence, including testimony from 38 witnesses, 
before Defendant elected to enter a plea of guilty. 
The Government offered Defendant a 37-year agreement.  The parties 
negotiated a plea to reflect that 37-year agreement as follows:  Defendant would 
enter a plea of guilty to Count I, XVIII, and XXII, in exchange for the Government 
dismissing the remaining 21 counts.  On Count I, Defendant agreed to the statutory 
maximum sentence of 60 months, consecutive to an 84-month sentence for 
brandishing a firearm on Count XVIII, and a consecutive 25-year (300 month) 
sentence on Count XXI, again for brandishing a firearm.  This resulted in an 
aggregate 37-year term of imprisonment.  On June 15, 2006, this Court sentenced 
Defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 37 years as the parties had 
Case: 4:05-cr-00085-ERW     Doc. #:  444     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
: 
 
3 
 
agreed and anticipated.  Defendant is 62 years old.  He is presently serving his 
sentence at Coleman Medium Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Florida.  
He has a projected release date of December 17, 2038. 
DISCUSSION 
In his Motion, Defendant requests his release or a sentence reduction based 
on:  (1) the non-retroactive, 2018 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which 
eliminated the 25-year stacking requirement for first-time offenders with multiple 
§ 924(c) violations; (2) the Government’s public exposure of Defendant’s efforts to 
cooperate in prosecuting others, which “create[ed] an inhumane state of existence 
wherein [Defendant] lives in perpetual fear due to the substantial risk of danger for 
his safety and life”; and (3) the factors set out under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 
specifically Defendant’s regret for his unlawful actions, his relatively advanced 
age, his attempt to assist law enforcement, and his successful completion of BOP 
programming and rehabilitation courses. 
 Sentences are final judgments, meaning a court ordinarily “may not modify 
a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The First 
Step Act (FSA), passed by Congress in 2018, is an exception to the finality of 
sentences.  Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).  In relevant part, the FSA 
amends 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to permit incarcerated defendants to file 
motions with the court seeking compassionate release.  Compassionate release 
Case: 4:05-cr-00085-ERW     Doc. #:  444     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
: 
 
4 
 
provides a narrow path for defendants with “extraordinary and compelling 
reasons” to leave prison early.  18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).  A reduction in 
sentence must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and be 
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.  
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).  The burden to establish that a sentence reduction is 
warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) rests with the defendant.  See United States v. 
Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2016). 
The Sentencing Commission's policy statement on compassionate release 
requires both “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to warrant a sentence 
reduction and the defendant not pose a danger to the public.  U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)-
(b).  The policy statement was amended on November 1, 2023, to reflect that a 
defendant may initiate motions for compassionate release which a Court may, in its 
own discretion, grant or deny. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, amend. 814. Amendment 814 to 
the Sentencing Commission policy statement also expands the list of extraordinary 
and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release. See id.; 2023 
Amendments in Brief, U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, 
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/amendments-in-
brief/AIB_814.pdf (last visited May 13, 2026). 
Upon review of the filings and the record as a whole, the Court finds no 
“extraordinary and compelling” reason to grant Defendant’s motion for 
Case: 4:05-cr-00085-ERW     Doc. #:  444     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
: 
 
5 
 
compassionate release/reduction of sentence.  Initially, in Rutherford, the United 
States Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he 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.”  Rutherford, 2026 WL 1485535, at *10.  Additionally, the circumstances 
described by Defendant, resulting in a “perpetual state of fear,” do not qualify as 
“extraordinary and compelling” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.  While Defendant 
reports that he has been threatened on two occasions, he also reports that he “has 
not been physically assaulted,” [Doc. No. 441-1] at 11-13, or suffered any serious 
bodily injury, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(4).  To the extent Defendant suffers from 
any medical symptoms resulting from his fear of assault, Defendant has failed to 
demonstrate that any such condition is terminal, “substantially diminishes the 
ability of [Defendant] to provide self-care within the environment of a correction 
facility and from which he . . . is not expected to recover,” or requires “long-term 
or specialized medical care that is not being provided or without which 
[Defendant]” would be at risk of “serious deterioration in health or death.”  See 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1).  None of these circumstances, independently or together, 
are extraordinary and compelling such that relief is justified. 
Even if the Court had found extraordinary and compelling reasons, which it 
does not, the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) do not support a reduction in 
Case: 4:05-cr-00085-ERW     Doc. #:  444     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
: 
 
6 
 
Defendant’s sentence.  From 2000 to 2005, Defendant engaged in a conspiracy to 
rob no less than 12 banks.  In each instance, Defendant possessed and brandished a 
firearm, creating a serious risk of bodily injury or death for victims.  While the 
Court appreciates the rehabilitative strides that Defendant has made while 
incarcerated, and takes note of Defendant’s struggles, those improvements do not 
discount the serous concerns that he is still a threat to the public, given his criminal 
history and the severity of the crimes for which he was sentenced.  As such, having 
considered each of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), the Court finds that 
compassionate release is not warranted at this time. 
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and 
proceedings herein,  
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate  
Release/Reduction of Sentence, [Doc. No. 441-1], is DENIED.  Defendant’s 
Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limitations for Filing, [Doc. No. 438], and 
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, [Doc. No. 440], are GRANTED.  
Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, [Doc. No. 439], and Motion to 
Hold Pro Se Pleadings in Abeyance, [Doc. No. 443], are DENIED as moot. 
Dated this 28
th day of May, 2026.   
     ________________________________ 
           HENRY EDWARD AUTREY 
     UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case: 4:05-cr-00085-ERW     Doc. #:  444     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight