United States v. Marcks, 2:19-cr-00315-JAD-NJK

Gina Marcks pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and is serving a 36-month federal sentence.
Less than a year into her sentence, Marcks filed a pro se motion for compassionate release.
Marcks argues for early release due to her need to care for her husband, who suffered a stroke, and her own health issues (a prison injury and age-related memory decline).
The court notes that the need to care for her husband was considered at sentencing and no new facts are presented.
Marcks provided no medical documentation supporting her claims of health deterioration or injury severity.
The court also considered the serious impact of Marcks’s offense, involving defrauding 2,700 victims of over $2 million, in weighing against early release.

Issue	Marcks's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Are Marcks’s asserted reasons "extraordinary and compelling" for compassionate release?	Her husband needs care after a stroke; she has health and injury issues.	These reasons were considered at sentencing and lack evidentiary support.	No, not extraordinary or compelling.
Has Marcks shown a material change in circumstances since sentencing?	Her husband’s ongoing care and her new injury in prison require her release.	No new developments; all were known and considered previously.	No, no change in circumstances shown.
Is early release appropriate given time served?	No argument presented regarding minimal time served.	Early release would undermine respect for the law and sentence purpose.	No, not appropriate given time served.
Did Marcks meet her evidentiary burden for health-related claims?	Claimed injury and memory loss without medical documentation.	No medical evidence provided; claims are unsupported.	No, claims unsupported by evidence.

United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2003) (addresses limits on sentencing modification under Rules 35 and 36)