UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODNEY EARL CANNADY
No. 5:08-CR-258-D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
June 20, 2025
JAMES C. DEVER III
On November 27, 2023, Rodney Earl Cannady (“Cannady” or “defendant“), proceeding pro se, moved for compassionate release under the First Step Act (“First Step Act“), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5238–41 (2018) (codified as amended at
On September 20, 2024, Cannady, proceeding pro se, moved for a sentence reduction under
On December 30, 2024, Cannady, again pro se, filed a second motion for a sentence
On March 12, 2025, probation filed a report concerning Cannady‘s motions for a sentence reduction [D.E. 228]. In that report, probation concluded that, although Amendment 821 applies to Cannady, Amendment 821 does not lower Cannady‘s advisory guidelines imprisonment range, and the United States agreed with probation‘s conclusion. See id.; [D.E. 228-1] 1. As explained below, the court denies as moot Cannady‘s motion to expedite, denies Cannady‘s motion for compassionate release, and denies Cannady‘s two motions for a sentence reduction.
I.
The court is very familiar with Cannady‘s case and has recounted its lengthy procedural history. See, e.g., [D.E. 194, 177, 138, 133, 125, 120, 95, 74, 57]. The court presumes Cannady‘s familiarity with his criminal convictions and failed postconviction motions. This order recounts only the procedural history relevant to Cannady‘s latest filings.
On September 4, 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Cannady and charged him with one count of possessing with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack) and a quantity of oxycodone in violation of
II.
A court may reduce a defendant‘s term of imprisonment if (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” or (2) “the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison,” and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP“) has determined the defendant is not a danger to another person or the community.
Before filing a motion under
When considering a defendant‘s compassionate release motion, the court determines whether extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist and whether, in the court‘s discretion, those circumstances warrant relief in light of relevant factors in
The Sentencing Commission policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 applies to a defendant‘s compassionate release motion. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a). Section 1B1.13(b) lists several extraordinary and compelling reasons, including (1) a defendant‘s medical circumstances;
Cannady seeks compassionate release under
his case presents extraordinary and compelling circumstances based on (1) Cannady‘s alleged health problems (i.e., hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes); (2) Cannady‘s rehabilitation efforts while federally incarcerated; (3) the death of Cannady‘s mother and father during Cannady‘s incarceration; (4) Cannady‘s teenaged son and daughters who Cannady alleges “need[ ] [their] dad“; and (5) changes in the law that allegedly produce a gross disparity between the sentence Cannady received in 2009 and the sentence he would receive today. See [D.E. 206] 5–7. The court addresses Cannady‘s motion on its merits. See Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 268; Muhammad, 16 F.4th at 129–30.
As for Cannady‘s alleged health problems (i.e., hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes), the “medical circumstances of the defendant” policy statement requires, in part, that the defendant be “housed at a correctional facility affected or at imminent risk of being affected by (I) an ongoing outbreak of infectious disease, or (II) an ongoing public health emergency declared by the appropriate federal, state, or local authority;” be “at increased risk of suffering severe medical complications or death as a result of exposure to the ongoing outbreak of infectious disease or the ongoing public health emergency” because of “personal health risk factors and custodial status“; and “such risk cannot be adequately mitigated in a timely manner.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(D). “To establish that the risk posed by COVID-19 presents an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ for release [under this subsection], a defendant must allege that the risk of contracting COVID-19 in a prison is higher than the risk outside the prison and that his preexisting medical condition
Cannady is 57 years old and states that he has hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes. See [D.E. 206] 5. Cannady does not argue that his alleged health problems increase his risk of severe COVID-19 infection and reducing Cannady‘s sentence does not comport with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(D) or any policy statement. See
To the extent Cannady argues that his hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances, the relevant policy statement requires, in part, that the defendant be “suffering from a serious physical or medical condition... that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B). Cannady‘s alleged health problems are not extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey, No. 1:11-CR-10, 2024 WL 589118, at *2–4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2024) (unpublished), aff‘d, No. 24-6191, 2024 WL 2575901 (4th Cir. May 24, 2024) (per curiam) (unpublished) (denying compassionate release to inmate diagnosed with congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, high cholesterol, and hypertension); United States v. Pultz, No. 5:03-CR-30113-5, 2021 WL 2152511, at *2 (W.D. Va. May 26, 2021) (unpublished) (denying compassionate release to inmate diagnosed with
As for Cannady‘s rehabilitation efforts while federally incarcerated, Cannady‘s rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. See
The “family circumstances” policy statement lists in relevant part that “[t]he death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant‘s ... child who is 18 years of age or older and
As for Cannady‘s argument concerning changes in the law and his career offender status, the “unusually long sentence” policy statement states that if a “defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such a change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed when the motion is filed, and only after full consideration of the defendant‘s individualized circumstances.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) (emphasis added). In exercising its discretion, the court must consider the section 3553(a) factors. See
Cannady argues that if the court sentenced him today, the court would no longer sentence his as a career offender. See [D.E. 206] 5-8. Specifically, Cannady cites United States v. Norman, 935 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Whitley, 737 F. App‘x 147 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished), and argues that his 1997 federal convictions for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack) no
Alternatively, Cannady relies on the two intervening decisions of the Fourth Circuit in Norman and Whitley, not changes in the law. In other words, Cannady‘s motion amounts to an argument that this court improperly interpreted existing law. Section 2255 provides the appropriate vehicle for such arguments, not a motion for compassionate release. Accordingly, the court declines to reduce Cannady‘s sentence on these grounds.
The court has considered each of Cannady‘s arguments and finds that reducing Cannady‘s sentence would not comport with any policy statement. Cannady fails to establish the existence of extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a sentencing reduction. Accordingly, the court denies Cannady‘s motion for compassionate release. See [D.E. 206].
As for the “other reasons” policy statement, the court assumes without deciding that Cannady‘s health problems, rehabilitation efforts, and family circumstances are extraordinary and compelling reasons under
Cannady is 57 years old and engaged in serious criminal behavior involving 601 grams of crack cocaine base (crack), 425 grams of powder cocaine, and 340 oxycodone pills, resisted arrest, assaulted an officer during his arrest, and had to be tased in order to be subdued. See PSR ¶¶ 3-9; Sent. Tr. at 16-45. Cannady then attempted to obstruct justice from the jail and perjured himself at the sentencing hearing. See Sent Tr. at 16–45; PSR ¶ 5. Moreover, Cannady is a violent, recidivist drug dealer. From January 1, 1988, to February 1997, Cannady participated in a large-scale drug conspiracy involving cocaine base (crack) and cocaine and distributed over 7.3 kilograms of crack cocaine. See PSR ¶ 33; Sent. Tr. 37–38. In May 1997, Cannady pleaded guilty in this court to that criminal conduct and received a sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release. See PSR ¶ 33. On November 2, 1999, the court reduced Cannady‘s sentence to 108 months’ imprisonment. See id. While on federal supervised release, Cannady committed additional criminal conduct. As a result, this court revoked his federal supervised release and sentenced Cannady to 30 months’ imprisonment. See id. The court later reduced that sentence to 16 months’ imprisonment, and Cannady was released on May 30, 2006. See id.
Cannady‘s life of crime did not end with his second release from federal prison. Instead, on August 10, 2007, Cannady possessed with the intent to manufacture/sell/ deliver cocaine and was arrested. See id. at ¶ 35. On April 23, 2008, Cannady pleaded guilty in state court to that felony and received a suspended sentence of 11 to 24 months’ imprisonment and 24 months’
Cannady has led an unrelenting life of crime. Cannady‘s criminal history began at age 18. See id. at ¶ 11. Cannady has convictions for, inter alia, assault and battery, fictitious information to an officer, fictitious/canceled/revoked/altered registration car tag (two counts), larceny, resist/obstruct a public officer (two counts), driving while impaired (five counts), second-degree kidnapping, assault inflicting serious injury, injury to personal property, escape from a local jail, simple worthless check (two counts), conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession with intent to manufacture/sell/deliver schedule II controlled substance. See id. at ¶¶ 11–35. In the kidnapping case, Cannady kidnapped the female victim and inflicted serious bodily injury by striking her on the head with his fist and a saw. See id. at ¶ 24.
Cannady committed his latest federal offense at age 40 while on probation for a state drug felony conviction. See id. at ¶ 39. Furthermore, Cannady has performed terribly on supervision. See id. at ¶¶ 24, 33, 35, 39. Additionally, during Cannady‘s latest trip to a federal prison (his third), Cannady sustained infractions for being absent from assignment (twice) and phone abuse-disrupt monitoring. See [D.E. 169-1] 2. Nonetheless, Cannady has taken some positive steps while incarcerated on his latest federal sentence. See id. at 1–3; cf. Pepper, 562 U.S. at 491; Chambers, 956 F.3d at 671–75.
The court does not believe Cannady or credit Cannady‘s claims of reformation. In fact, Cannady is one of the least credible human beings and most committed criminals that this court has encountered. The court has considered the entire record, Cannady‘s underlying health issues, rehabilitation efforts, family circumstances, and all relevant factors under the section 3553(a)
III.
Under
The sentencing court follows a two-step inquiry when reviewing motions for sentence
In evaluating the section 3553(a) factors, the court considers, inter alia, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, a defendant‘s post-sentencing conduct, the need to deter criminal behavior, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to protect the public. See
Cannady seeks a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 Part A. See [D.E 221, 224]. Amendment 821 Part A, which became effective on November 1, 2023, amended Chapter Four
The court, however, need not consider Cannady‘s motion for a sentence reduction. Although Amendment 821 applies to Cannady, it does not lower Cannady‘s advisory guidelines imprisonment range. See [D.E. 288, 228-1, 228-2]. Accordingly, the court denies Cannady‘s motions for a sentence reduction. See [D.E. 221, 224].
IV.
In sum, the court DENIES as moot defendant‘s motion for the court to forward his motion for a sentence reduction to the United States Attorney‘s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina [D.E. 207], DENIES as moot defendant‘s motion to expedite [D.E. 208], and DENIES defendant‘s motions for compassionate release [D.E. 206] and a sentence reduction [D.E. 221, 224].
SO ORDERED. This 20 day of June, 2025.
JAMES C. DEVER III
United States District Judge
Notes
the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant‘s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant‘s facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in
- extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or
- the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under
section 3559(c) , for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director ofthe Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.