Memorandum and Order — No. 4:22-cr-00169 (Dkt. 107, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

A Memorandum and Order, Doc. #: 107, filed April 25, 2025 in United States v. Terrell Alexander, No. 4:22-CR-00169-JAR-1 (Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, signed by United States District Judge John A. Ross. It states that the defendant pleaded guilty in November 2022 to eighteen counts involving wire fraud, identity theft and theft of government money in connection with fraudulent business loan applications under the CARES Act, and was sentenced in March 2023 to 65 months, later reduced to 57 months. The court denies his pro se motion for a further reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Doc. 106), finding no extraordinary and compelling reasons, and denies his July 2023 motion (Doc. 55) as moot.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

    Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR         Doc. #: 107 Filed: 04/25/25           Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
                                               412



                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                    EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          )
                                                   )
          Plaintiff,                               )
                                                   )
          v.                                       )       No. 4:22-CR-00169-JAR-1
                                                   )
TERRELL ALEXANDER,                                 )
                                                   )
          Defendant.                               )

                                 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          This matter is before the Court on two pro se motions filed by Defendant Terrell Alexander

seeking a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The motions will be

denied.

                                          BACKGROUND

          In November 2022, Defendant Alexander pleaded guilty to eighteen counts involving wire

fraud, identity theft, and theft of government money in connection with multiple fraudulent

business loan applications administered under the CARES Act. (Doc. 30). In March 2023, the

Court sentenced Alexander to a total of 65 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised

release. (Doc. 48). In July 2023, Alexander filed a pro se motion for a reduction in sentence

pursuant to anticipated amendments to the sentencing guidelines scheduled to take effect

November 1, 2023. (Doc. 55). In December 2023, counsel filed a motion for relief under the new

Amendment 821. (Doc. 93). The Court granted that motion in July 2024, reducing Alexander’s

sentence to 57 months. (Doc. 97).1 In October and November 2024, Alexander filed additional


1
        On review of the file, the Court notes that Alexander’s pro se motion of July 2023 was not
formally disposed but was addressed by the Court’s subsequent 821 order. As such, the Court will deny
that motion as moot.

                                                  1
 Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR           Doc. #: 107 Filed: 04/25/25           Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
                                              413



pro se motions for a further reduction, citing sentencing disparities in relation to other individuals

charged separately in connection with the same fraud scheme, as well as his rehabilitation efforts.

(Doc. 99, 100). In February 2025, the Court denied those motions, reasoning that the modified

sentence remained appropriate considering § 3553(a) sentencing factors.             In March 2025,

Alexander filed the latest motion for reduction in sentence, again citing sentencing disparities and

his rehabilitation efforts and also citing his “unusually long sentence” as an extraordinary and

compelling reason for a reduction. (Doc. 106). Alexander is currently incarcerated at Seagoville

FCI in Texas with a projected release date of October 21, 2026. He is 48 years old.

                                      LEGAL STANDARDS

       The First Step Act, passed in 2018, allows an incarcerated individual to bring his own

motion for compassionate release if he has exhausted his administrative appeals or after the warden

of his facility receives the request and does not respond within 30 days. Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132

Stat. 5194, § 603(b). Aside from allowing defendants to bring their own motions, the First Step

Act did not change the standards for compassionate release. United States v. Vangh, 990 F.3d

1138, 1140 (8th Cir. 2021). Relief is available where the proposed sentence reduction is supported

by: (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” (2) applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission, and (3) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). As relevant to Alexander’s latest motion, “extraordinary and compelling reasons”

include the situation where, for a defendant who received an unusually long sentence and has

served at least 10 years, a subsequent change in the law (other than non-retroactive amendments

to the guidelines) would produce a gross disparity between the original sentence and the one he

would have received. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6).




                                                  2
 Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR          Doc. #: 107 Filed: 04/25/25            Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
                                             414



         The second requirement – that the reduction is consistent with Sentencing Commission

policy – focuses on community safety. The guidelines provide that compassionate release is only

appropriate when the defendant “is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the

community.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)(2). Relevant factors include the nature of the offense, the

history and characteristics of the defendant, and the nature of the danger. Id. (incorporating the 18

U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors).

         The third requirement focuses on the § 3553(a) factors, which include “(1) the nature and

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” as well as “(2)

the need for the sentence imposed – (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect

for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct; [and] (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a).

         Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) is “an extraordinary and rare event.”

White v. United States, 378 F.Supp.3d 784, 787 (W.D. Mo. 2019). The defendant bears the burden

of establishing that such relief is warranted. United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir.

2016).

                                          DISCUSSION

         As a preliminary matter, Alexander has not presented any documentation establishing that

he attempted to pursue administrative remedies before petitioning the Court by first submitting a

request to the warden of his facility, as the statute requires. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). His motion

is subject to dismissal on this basis alone. United States v. Houck, 2 F.4th 1082, 1084 (8th Cir.

2021). Even were the Court to overlook this “mandatory claim-processing rule” (Id.), the reasons

set forth in Alexander’s motions do not constitute grounds for relief.



                                                 3
 Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR          Doc. #: 107 Filed: 04/25/25           Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
                                             415



       Alexander’s reliance on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) (for unusually long sentences calculated

under older guidelines) is misplaced here. Alexander has not served at least 10 years of his

sentence, and the Court already considered retroactive changes in the guidelines affecting the

original sentence and adjusted his sentence accordingly. (Doc. 97). Further, while the Court

commends Alexander’s rehabilitation efforts, rehabilitation alone is insufficient to warrant relief;

it may only be considered in combination with other meritorious compelling factors. United States

v. DeFoggi, No. 22-2327, 2023 WL 4112142, at *2 (8th Cir. June 22, 2023). Alexander fails to

establish other circumstances qualifying as extraordinary and compelling under U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13(b). This alone defeats his motion.

       Turning to the second and third prongs of the analysis focusing on community safety and

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, as the Court stated as recently as February 4, 2025 (Doc. 102), the

Court continues to believe that Alexander’s modified sentence is fair, just, and necessary to

provide adequate punishment and deterrence, and no further reduction is appropriate.

                                         CONCLUSION

       Accordingly,

       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reduction in sentence dated

March 2025 is DENIED. (Doc. 106).

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for relief under the First Step Act

dated July 2023 is DENIED as moot. (Doc. 55)

       Dated this 25th day of April 2025.



                                                  JOHN A. ROSS
                                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                 4


File and source

File

107.pdf

Size

109,737 bytes

SHA-256

ccffba5c9f7911ad02c2c9877f5aa942c66dfc308d600825790b84b58cc2136c

Our copy

107.pdf

Original

No public link identified.