Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / News / Inmate denied early release

Inmate denied early release

Judge denies compassionate release for a second time

A federal judge has denied a prison inmate’s request for compassionate release because he fears contracting COVID-19.

An earlier motion for early release from prison was denied in July 202 by U.S. District Court Judge David G. Larimer.

McIntyre’s motion for reconsideration was denied in February 2021.

“The first motion was properly denied by this Court and this second motion fares no better,” Larimer wrote in the decision released Monday.

“McIntyre has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating extraordinary and compelling reasons to modify the sentence previously imposed by this court, 151 months,” according to the decision.

McIntyre pleaded guilty to a narcotics offense under a plea agreement. He conceded that the was a career offender, which called for a sentence of 151 to 188 months, under federal sentencing guidelines.

Government lawyers filed its response opposing the McIntyre’s motion to be released. McIntyre filed a reply to the government’s response.

The government’s response notes the procedural history of the case which includes references to McIntyre’s prior motion for compassionate release and his motion to vacate the judgment and sentence.

That motion for relief was denied by Larimer in January 2020. Afterwards, McIntyre filed his first motion for compassionate release.

The government response suggests that there are several reasons to deny McIntyre’s motion.

“The Court agrees. McIntyre cites some familial hardships, without much specificity and also raises certain legal arguments which he claims warrant relief,” Larimer wrote.

“The references to family circumstances are vague and not supported and they do not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief,” Larimer wrote.

Larimer wrote that guidelines that lay out considerations for such a motion, but “none of those circumstances exist in McIntyre’s case.”

“McIntyre suggests that he may not in fact be a career offender but, of course, he admitted that he was at the time of the plea and there is nothing presented here to suggest otherwise,” Larimer wrote.

Case law cited by McIntyre was not applicable, Larimer wrote. Also, Larimer wrote, a motion for compassionate release “is not the place to raise legal arguments that could have been raised on appeal.”

“The same can be said for McIntyre’s belated suggestion now that he was somehow entrapped into engaging in the narcotics activity that resulted in his conviction. Such matters are not appropriate when considering a motion for compassionate release,” Larimer wrote.

Larimer pointed out that he denied McIntyre’s first motion for compassionate release based on federal sentencing factors.

“For the same reasons that I referenced in the first decision denying compassionate release, I rely on those reasons in this, McIntyre’s second motion for compassionate release, and deny the motion based on those sentencing factors,” Larimer wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035