United States v. Stockstill, 1:21-cr-00080

Joshua Christopher Stockstill, a former police officer, pleaded guilty to producing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
The indictment stemmed from Stockstill's production and distribution of videos and photos involving several minors, including his daughter and a family friend's child, and sharing them online and with others.
Stockstill admitted to authorities he had a diaper fetish, took the illicit photos and videos for sexual gratification, and distributed them, leading to their online proliferation.
Victims and their families testified about the emotional, psychological, and ongoing harm resulting from Stockstill’s conduct, including betrayal of trust and lifelong consequences for the victims.
Stockstill filed a motion for compassionate release, alleging extraordinary and compelling reasons, and requested appointment of counsel.
The government opposed the motion, arguing Stockstill had not exhausted his administrative remedies and that, on the merits, early release was unwarranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies	Stockstill argued he had made a request to the BOP for compassionate release.	Government argued Stockstill’s request was insufficient and not properly directed to the warden.	Court held Stockstill failed to exhaust remedies—no proof Warden received the request.
Consistency with § 3553(a) Factors	Stockstill sought a reduction based on remorse, rehabilitation, and health issues.	Government argued seriousness of offense, risk to public, and harm to victims outweighed these factors.	Court held a 30-year sentence remains appropriate under § 3553(a); no reduction is warranted.
Entitlement to Compassionate Release	Argued extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for release, referencing completed programs and health issues.	Opposed by government as not extraordinary or compelling given nature of the crime.	No extraordinary/compelling reasons found; motion denied.
Appointment of Counsel	Requested counsel for the compassionate release motion.	Government opposed, noting the issues were straightforward.	Court denied appointment of counsel: no significant legal/factual complexity.

United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming requirement to exhaust administrative remedies for compassionate release and outlining factors to consider)
United States v. Garrett, 15 F.4th 335 (5th Cir. 2021) (clarifying the exhaustion process and timing under § 3582(c)(1)(A))
United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088 (5th Cir. 2022) (requirements for granting compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A))