United States v. Jeffrey Rodd
966 F.3d 740
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- Jeffrey C. Rodd, a Minnesota investment adviser and radio host, was convicted of four counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud for a scheme that defrauded 23 investors of over $1.8 million. He was sentenced to 87 months' imprisonment.
- At sentencing the district court considered Rodd’s extensive medical history (including hip replacement, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, vision problems, and other chronic conditions) and ordered designation to a medical facility; this court previously affirmed the sentence.
- After the First Step Act, Rodd submitted compassionate-release requests to his warden (claiming worsening medical conditions, assaults, and other injuries); the BOP did not grant relief and the warden ultimately denied his request.
- Rodd moved pro se for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court analyzed his claims under the Sentencing Guidelines policy statement (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13), found his conditions did not match the guideline examples of extraordinary and compelling reasons, but—assuming arguendo that they did—denied relief after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
- On appeal Rodd argued the district court erred by (1) failing to recognize its independent discretion to define “extraordinary and compelling” after the First Step Act and (2) abusing its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors in light of his health and prison conduct. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was required to reject the pre-First Step Act Sentencing Commission policy statement (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13) and exercise independent discretion to define “extraordinary and compelling” reasons | Rodd: district court erred by adhering to the pre-First Step Act policy and not recognizing broader judicial discretion under the First Step Act | District court (and government): policy statement remains relevant; alternatively, even if district court assumed broader definition, relief still not warranted | Affirmed. Court avoided deciding the scope question because the district court assumed arguendo that Rodd met an expanded definition and denied relief on § 3553(a) grounds; no reversible error |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying compassionate release after considering post‑sentencing medical deterioration and prison record | Rodd: court failed to consider significant post‑sentencing deterioration and exemplary institutional record; these factors warrant release | District court: considered the § 3553(a) factors, emphasized the nature and seriousness of the fraud and victim harm, and found those factors outweighed mitigating evidence | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; district court was aware of and considered § 3553(a) factors and reasonably declined relief |
| Whether Rodd satisfied administrative exhaustion (30‑day lapse or BOP response) | Rodd: warden did not timely respond to his compassionate‑release requests, so he could file in court | BOP: initial requests were misread as unrelated program requests, but the warden ultimately denied relief after review | Affirmed implicitly. District court proceeded (30‑day lapse/administrative exhaustion was treated as met) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review and First Step Act framework for compassionate release)
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (district court may assume extraordinary‑and‑compelling eligibility and deny relief on § 3553(a) grounds)
- United States v. Dailey, 958 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2020) (district courts need not mechanically recite each § 3553(a) factor; awareness suffices)
- United States v. Thompson, [citation="641 F. App'x 641"] (8th Cir. 2016) (appellate standard that district court must be aware of relevant sentencing factors)
- United States v. Williams, 791 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2015) (presumption that district court considered motions and submitted mitigating evidence)
- United States v. Rodd, 790 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal affirming Rodd’s original sentence)