ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODNEY ROLLNESS,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-041RSL

ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE 

RELEASE

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion for compassionate release 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Dkt. # 1066). Having considered the motion and the 

record contained herein,1 the Court finds as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant is a 60-year-old inmate currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary in 

Lompoc, California (“USP Lompoc”). Dkts. # 1066 at 4, 6, # 1083 at 2, # 1085 at 3. On June 11, 

2007, defendant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses, including, inter alia, 

participation in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1962(c), RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and murder in violation 

of the Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a) (“VICAR murder”). 

1 The Court finds compelling reasons justify sealing the government’s Exhibit A (Dkt. # 1087) 

and defendant’s Exhibit B (Dkt. # 1094) as they contain defendant’s sensitive medical information. The

parties’ respective motions to seal (Dkts. # 1086, # 1093) are accordingly GRANTED. The 

government’s motion for leave to file an over-length brief (Dkt. # 1084) is also GRANTED.

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dkts. # 761, # 772. On October 18, 2007, defendant appeared before the Court for sentencing 

for these offenses. Dkts. # 913, # 914. The Court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment and

five years of supervised release. Id. He now moves for compassionate release. 

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The compassionate release statute provides narrow grounds for defendants in 

“extraordinary and compelling” circumstances to be released from prison early. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c). The First Step Act of 2018 amended the procedural requirements governing 

compassionate release. See id. Prior to the First Step Act’s passage, only the Director of the 

BOP could bring motions for compassionate release. The Director rarely filed such motions. 

See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 411 F. Supp. 3d 446, 448 (S.D. Iowa 2019). Congress 

amended the statute to allow defendants to directly petition district courts for compassionate 

release. As amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) states in relevant part,

(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.—The court may not 

modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—

(1) in any case—

(A) 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 section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 

applicable, if it finds that—

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such 

a reduction; . . . 

(ii) . . . 

and that such a reduction is consistent with the 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission[.]

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Prior to passing the First Step Act, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to 

promulgate a policy statement defining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in the 

compassionate release context. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Section 994(t) provides,

The Commission, in promulgating general policy statements regarding the 

sentencing modification provisions in [18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)], shall 

describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons 

for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of 

specific examples. Rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be 

considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.

The Sentencing Commission implemented this directive from Congress with a policy 

statement—U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In relevant part, the policy statement provides,

Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

(Policy Statement)

Upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of imprisonment (and may 

impose a term of supervised release with or without conditions that does 

not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment) if, 

after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent 

they are applicable, the court determines that—

(1)(A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; 

. . . 

(2) The defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or 

to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and

(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.—Provided the 

defendant meets the requirements of subdivision (2), 

extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under any of the 

circumstances set forth below:

(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant—

(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., 

a serious and advanced illness with an end of life 

trajectory). A specific prognosis of life expectancy 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 3 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(i.e., a probability of death within a specific time 

period) is not required. Examples include metastatic 

solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 

(ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced 

dementia.

(ii) The defendant is—

(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical 

condition,

(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive 

impairment, or

(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental 

health because of the aging process,

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.

(B) Age of the Defendant.—The defendant (i) is at least 65 

years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in 

physical or mental health because of the aging process; 

and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or 

her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.

(C) Family Circumstances.—

(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the 

defendant’s minor child or minor children.

(ii) The incapacitation of the defendant’s spouse or 

registered partner when the defendant would be the 

only available caregiver for the spouse or registered 

partner.

(D) Other Reasons.—As determined by the Director of the 

Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant’s case an 

extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in 

combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions 

(A) through (C).

2. Foreseeability of Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.—

For purposes of this policy statement, an extraordinary and 

compelling reason need not have been unforeseen at the time of 

sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the term of 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 4 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and 

compelling reason reasonably could have been known or 

anticipated by the sentencing court does not preclude 

consideration for a reduction under this policy statement. 

3. Rehabilitation of the Defendant.—Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 994(t), rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for purposes of this policy 

statement.

4. Motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.—A 

reduction under this policy statement may be granted only upon 

motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Commission encourages the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons to file such a motion if the 

defendant meets any of the circumstances set forth in Application 

Note 1. The court is in a unique position to determine whether 

the circumstances warrant a reduction (and, if so, the amount of 

reduction), after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) and the criteria set forth in this policy statement, such 

as the defendant’s medical condition, the defendant’s family 

circumstances, and whether the defendant is a danger to the 

safety of any other person or to the community.

This policy statement shall not be construed to confer upon the 

defendant any right not otherwise recognized in law[.]

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The Ninth Circuit has held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 “is not an ‘applicable 

policy statement’ for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant.” United States v. 

Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court may consider U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in 

exercising its discretion, but the policy statement is not binding. Id.; see United States v. Van 

Cleave, Nos. CR03-247-RSL, CR04-125-RSL, 2020 WL 2800769, at *3–5 (W.D. Wash. May 

29, 2020) (referring to the guidance of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as “persuasive, but not binding”). 

III. DEFENDANT’S CIRCUMSTANCES

A. Exhaustion Requirement

A prisoner must establish exhaustion if the government timely raises the issue. United 

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2021); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The

government contends that defendant’s motion and supplemental brief fail to demonstrate that he 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 5 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has satisfied the exhaustion requirement, at least to the extent his current claim for relief is based 

on diabetes. Dkt. # 1085 at 9. Defendant alleges that he submitted a request for compassionate 

release to the Warden on November 27, 2020. Dkt. # 1066 at 4. Defendant’s counsel’s 

declaration indicates the request was made on November 20, 2020. Dkt. # 1083-1 at 3, ¶ 2. On 

December 14, 2020, the Warden denied the request after reviewing defendant’s documentation, 

central file, and medical records. Dkt. # 1083-2. The government takes issue with the fact that 

defendant’s medical records do not reflect a diabetes diagnosis until March 2021, such that 

defendant’s request could not have included this diagnosis as a basis for relief in his request to 

the Warden. Dkt. # 1085 at 9. On September 1, 2021, defendant submitted a request to the 

Warden to reconsider defendant’s motion for compassionate release and explicitly referenced 

his diabetes diagnosis. Dkt. # 1092 at 3. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s current claim for 

relief, including his diabetes-based reasoning, has been exhausted, the Court nevertheless denies 

defendant’s motion for the reasons explained below.

B. “Extraordinary and Compelling” Circumstances

Defendant’s supplemental brief supporting his motion for compassionate release based 

release on the following arguments:

2 (1) that defendant is at “exceptional risk” of complications 

or death if he contracts COVID-19 during his incarceration,

3 (2) that defendant has additional 

2 Defendant’s pro se motion also argued for release based on his “actual innocence” and new 

case law. Dkt. # 1066 at 10. A motion that attacks a petitioner’s underlying conviction is an attack on the 

merits of the case, and is more appropriate for a 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion, not a compassionate release 

motion, which concerns the appropriate term of imprisonment for a lawful conviction. As for the alleged 

new case law, defendant cited none. Id. Defendant’s arguments are thus unavailing.

3 To the extent defendant asserts that general conditions of confinement at USP Lompoc

constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances, Dkt. # 1083 at 2–4, the Court rejects defendant’s 

reasoning because it is not sufficiently individualized. See, e.g., United States v. Bolden, No. 2:13-CR00201-RSM, 2020 WL 4286820, at *7 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2020) (“[G]eneral conditions that affect 

inmates indiscriminately throughout the prison are insufficient to support an individual defendant’s 

claim for compassionate release.”), appeal dismissed, No. 20-30168, 2020 WL 6580183 (9th Cir. Aug. 

26, 2020); United States v. Butov, No. CR16-226RSM, 2020 WL 5910063, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 

2020) (stating that “[c]ourts have consistently rejected . . . generalized arguments as a basis for 

compassionate release,” e.g., challenges to BOP medical staffing and lack of adequate testing). 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 6 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

medical problems; and (3) that, as a result of defendant’s mandatory life sentence, “relevant 

mitigation factors were not fully developed or presented at sentencing.” Dkt. # 1083 at 2–9. The 

Court addresses each of these rationales in turn and ultimately concludes that defendant fails to 

establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

1. COVID-19 Risk

The Court need not reiterate the widely known information regarding the symptoms of 

COVID-19 and the devastating global impact of the virus. COVID-19 has created 

unprecedented challenges for federal prisons, where inmate populations are large and close 

contact between inmates is unavoidable. As of September 28, 2021, the BOP reports 484 federal 

inmates and 501 BOP staff have active, confirmed positive COVID-19 test results. See COVID19 Coronavirus, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Sept. 28, 

2021). Since the BOP reported its first case in late March 2020, at least 258 federal inmates and 

six BOP staff members have died from the virus. Id. USP Lompoc currently reports zero 

inmates and three BOP staff members with active, positive COVID-19 test results. Id. BOP has 

classified 172 inmates and 61 staff members at USP Lompoc as having “recovered” from the 

virus and two inmates as having died from it. Id. Approximately 72% of the inmate population 

at the Federal Correctional Complex in Lompoc (FCC Lompoc) is now vaccinated. See id. 

(reflecting that 1,488 inmates are vaccinated at FCC Lompoc, which comprises FCI Lompoc 

and USP Lompoc); USP Lompoc, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/locations/

institutions/lom/ (last visited Sept. 28, 2021) (reflecting a population of 1,358 total inmates at 

USP Lompoc); FCI Lompoc, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/locations/

institutions/lof/ (last visited Sept. 28, 2021) (reflecting a population of 710 total inmates at FCI 

Lompoc).

Defendant points to his diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and 

asthma as underlying conditions that “exponentially increase the risk of serious complications or 

death should” he contract COVID-19. Dkt. # 1083 at 8–9. The CDC has identified diabetes, 

obesity, hypertension, and asthma (if it is moderate to severe) as conditions that can make a 

person more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19. See People with Certain Medical 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 7 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Conditions, CDC (Aug. 20, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extraprecautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (last visited Sept. 28, 2021). The government 

has presented evidence related to defendant’s access to COVID-19 vaccination, however, that 

undercuts defendant’s argument. Defendant was offered the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in 

March 2021, and he refused it. Dkt. # 1087 at 4. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that 

vaccination is a safe and effective way to avoid contracting the virus. Key Things to Know 

About COVID-19 Vaccines, CDC (Aug. 19, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html (last visited Sept. 28, 2021). Defendant’s attorney’s 

declaration supporting defendant’s supplemental brief states that defendant “received no detailed 

information about the safety of the vaccine” and he “has medical, allergy and religious concerns 

with taking the vaccine.” Dkt. # 1083-1 at 4, ¶ 8. BOP medical records reflect that defendant 

received counseling advising him to be vaccinated as recently as July 2021, and that “all 

questions regarding vaccination were answered.” Dkt. # 1087 at 2. In response to the 

government’s evidence regarding defendant’s access to vaccination, defendant’s reply relies 

upon a second declaration by his attorney. With respect to vaccine concerns, the declaration 

states as follows: 

Mr. Rollness has had repeated incidents throughout his life with extreme

sensitivities and allergic reactions to medications, anesthesia, and vaccines. His

recent medical records confirm he has not accepted flu or other vaccines. Exhibit 

B pp 33-36. He reports allergies to vaccine ingredients including lipids, ether, and

acetic acid, and he has experienced problems with tuberculosis skin tests resulting

in significant swelling and inflammation deemed a false positive adverse reaction

and not an actual infection. Mr. Rollness is allergic to NSAIDS and often 

experiences reactions or side effects to ingredients in medications. 

Dkt. # 1092-1 at 5, ¶ 7. The medical records defendant cites regarding rejecting non-COVID-19 

vaccines do not explain the reason for defendants’ rejections, and defendant cites no medical 

records substantiating that he has allergic reactions to vaccines. BOP medical records list 

“NSAIDs” under defendant’s allergies, but not particular vaccines or vaccine ingredients. Dkts. 

# 1067 at 14, 19, # 1094 at 9. Moreover, other BOP medical records reveal that defendant has 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 8 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stated “he does not like to take medicine,”4 Dkts. # 1094 at 9, # 1067 at 19, and he is “known for 

a history of noncompliance with medication,” Dkt. # 1094 at 14. Given the lack of 

documentation supporting defendant’s alleged vaccine-related allergies, the Court finds 

defendant’s decision to decline the vaccine weighs against compassionate release on the basis of 

vulnerability to COVID-19. See United States v. Baeza-Vargas, No. CR-10-00448-010-PHXJAT, 2021 WL 1250349, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 5, 2021) (“Judges of this Court, as well as others 

around the country, have ruled with consistency that an inmate’s denial of a COVID-19 

vaccination weighs against a finding of extraordinary and compelling circumstances.”). The 

Court finds that defendant’s argument regarding COVID-19 vulnerability does not establish an 

extraordinary and compelling basis for compassionate release.5

2. Additional Medical Problems

Defendant argues that he has additional medical problems that warrant compassionate 

release. In particular, defendant highlights that he has “had difficulty getting access to his 

inhaler at times during the Pandemic.” Dkt. # 1083 at 6. Defendant also remarks that he has 

chronic pain conditions and that pain management has been a challenge in prison. Id. Although 

the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement is not binding, Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802, the Court finds it 

instructive regarding the type of circumstances that would be extraordinary and compelling. 

4 Defendant’s attorney’s declaration also states that defendant “dislikes taking medications.” Dkt. 

# 1083-1 at 4, ¶ 6.

5 The cases defendant relies upon are distinguishable because they either predate COVID-19 

vaccination at BOP facilities or do not analyze facts regarding vaccination. See Dkt. # 1083 at 9; United 

States v. Morris, No. CR99-0174-JCC, 2020 WL 4344945 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2020) (predated 

COVID-19 vaccination in BOP facilities); United States v. Adeyemi, 470 F. Supp. 3d 489 (E.D. Penn. 

2020) (same); United States v. Bennett, No. 15-260(10) (PAM/TNL), 2020 WL 3638696 (D. Minn. July 

6, 2020) (same); United States v. Black, No. 1:11-cr-00083-TWP-MJD, 2020 WL 4583056 (S.D. Ind. 

Aug. 10, 2020) (same); United States v. Tables, No. CR18-16 TSZ, 2020 WL 6196389 (W.D. Wash. 

Sep. 2, 2020); United States v. Carson, No. CR06-5059 RJB, 2021 WL 22588 (W.D. Wash. Jan 4, 2021)

(same); United States v. Carter, No. CR15-211 MJP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10680 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 

20, 2021) (does not analyze facts regarding vaccination); see also COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts 

Commended, Fed. Bureau of Prisons (Jan. 16, 2021), https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/20210116_

covid_vaccine_efforts_commended.jsp (last visited Sept. 27, 2021) (counting BOP administration of 

COVID-19 vaccinations from January 15, 2021).

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 9 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Under Note 1(A), regarding medical condition of a defendant, extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances exist where:

(ii) The defendant is—

(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,

(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or

(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the 

aging process,

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.

BOP’s Medical Duty Status sheet indicates that defendant has no physical limitations or work 

restrictions. Dkt. # 1067 at 12. Regarding defendant’s access to his inhaler, BOP records reflect 

that after his August 9, 2020 request for medical services, along with defendant’s numerous 

follow-up requests,6 he was provided with an inhaler on September 4, 2020, Dkt. # 1094 at 2–

10. BOP records also reflect that in late February and early March 2021, defendant requested 

renewal of his inhaler, Dkt. # 1094 at 23–24, and the prescription was renewed. With respect to 

defendant’s chronic pain conditions, in defendant’s recent health services encounter this past 

August, records reflect that his pain behaviors were “much less pronounced” and defendant 

received “some immediate relief” from the injections he received at that visit. Id. at 30. 

6 Any Eighth Amendment arguments defendant may have regarding the conditions of 

confinement may be properly brought in a habeas petition or a direct civil claim, not a motion for 

compassionate release. See United States v. Numann, No. 3:16-CR-00065-TMB, 2020 WL 1977117, at 

*4 (D. Alaska Apr. 24, 2020) (holding that an Eighth Amendment claim “relating to the manner and 

conditions of confinement—[is] not properly brought in a motion for compassionate release”); United

States v. Miller, No. 15-CR-00471-CRB-1, 2021 WL 2711728, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021) (observing 

that inmates have “alternative avenues to obtain improved medical care”); Torres v. Milusnic, 472 F. 

Supp. 3d 713, 743–46 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (granting provisional class certification to a subset of FCC 

Lompoc inmates regarding COVID-19 exposure).

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 10 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Additionally, new pain medications were ordered. Id. at 31. Although BOP records reflect that 

there is often a delay between defendant’s request for medical services and treatment, the Court 

does not find that defendant’s medical conditions substantially diminish his ability to provide 

self-care, nor do they otherwise amount to extraordinary and compelling circumstances. 

3. Limited Consideration of the Sentencing Factors

Defendant contends that the Court’s inability to consider mitigating circumstances at 

sentencing is another factor establishing extraordinary and compelling reasons. While this factor 

is relevant to analyzing the § 3553(a) factors, the fact that a mandatory sentence applied at 

sentencing does not move the needle very far on the extraordinary-and-compelling scale where 

the sentence is otherwise consistent with current law and many defendants face mandatory 

sentences at sentencing. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant has not established that 

“extraordinary and compelling” cirumstances exist to support his request for compassionate 

release.

C. Additional Considerations

Even if the Court were to find that “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances exist 

here, additional considerations lead the Court to deny defendant’s motion. Courts must assess 

whether a sentence reduction to time served is consistent with the sentencing factors set forth in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Relevant factors include: (i) “the nature 

and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (ii) the 

need for the sentence imposed “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for 

the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”; to adequately deter criminal conduct; 

“to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant”; and “to provide the defendant with 

needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the 

most effective manner”; (iii) “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”; (iv) the 

sentencing guidelines; and (v) “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a); see also United States v. Grimes, No. CR11-5509 BHS, 2021 WL 319404, at 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 11 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

*3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 26, 2021) (summarizing relevant factors). Here, the Court finds that the 

sentencing factors weigh against compassionate release.7

Defendant makes a variety of arguments regarding the sentencing factors. Defendant 

remarks that the Court could not have predicted the pandemic or its impact on inmates and their 

families. Dkt. # 1083 at 10. While it is true that the Court did not predict the pandemic or the 

subsequent hardship arising from it, the sentencing factors still cut against release. The nature 

and circumstances of defendant’s crime were extremely serious. Defendant committed nine acts 

of racketeering, including the murder of Michael Walsh, the robbery of Leonard Sellig, 

extortion, and interstate transport of stolen motorcycles. PSR ¶¶ 19–25. Defendant was found 

guilty of several other offenses based on the same conduct, including violent crime in aid of 

7 The Court finds the cases relied upon by defendant unpersuasive and distinguishable. See Dkt. 

# 1083 at 11. For example, in United States v. Bass, 514 F. Supp. 3d 977, 983–85 (E.D. Mich. 2021), 

defendant “was reared in abject poverty,” had experienced “unaddressed household trauma,” had 

become a life coach during incarceration after earning a full tuition scholarship with the “glowing 

recommendation of his instructors.” Moreover, the letters to the Court on Bass’s behalf detailed Bass’s 

remorse, ownership, and growth, id. at 985, whereas many of the letters on defendant’s behalf focus not 

on defendant’s remorse or accountability, but rather contend that defendant was wrongfully convicted. 

See, e.g., Dkt. # 1067 at 45–48, 53–54, 55–61, 62–67. Where the reason for the requested relief is an 

alleged wrongful conviction, a compassionate release motion is not the appropriate vehicle. Defendant’s 

other cases fare no better. See United States v. Huggans, No. 4:07 CR 541 CDP (E.D. Mo. June 11, 

2021) (involving a mandatory life sentence for a non-violent drug offense due to a sentencing 

enhancement that would not be applied today); United States v. Russell, No. 3:05-CR-00257-SLB-HNJ10, 2021 WL 1597927, at *8, *10 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 23, 2021) (same); United States v. Lopez, No. 97-

01117 ACK-2, 2020 WL 6298061, at *7 (D. Haw. Oct. 27, 2020) (regarding a defendant who was only 

18 at the time of the offense with no prior criminal record, with “extraordinary rehabilitation,” and who 

will be deported to Mexico upon release); United States v. Duncan, 478 F. Supp. 3d 669, 679–83 (M.D. 

Tenn. 2020) (involving a mandatory life sentence for non-violent drug and firearm offenses, where 

defendant had extremely low IQ, medical conditions resulting from brain hemorrhage at birth, and 

where sentencing judge commented that the mandatory sentence was too high); United States v. Hope, 

No. 90-CR-06108-KMW-2, 2020 WL 2477523, at *1, *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2020) (involving a 

mandatory life sentence for non-violent drug and firearm offenses due to a sentencing enhancement that 

would not be applied today, where defendant had already served almost thirty years, the mandatory life 

sentence he received would not be imposed today, and he required surgery).

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 12 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

racketeering for the murder of Michael Walsh. PSR ¶ 26. According to the Presentence Report, 

“[s]ome indicia of premeditation appears to exist in this case—the victim was ‘lured’” to the 

party where he was murdered, and he “was isolated behind the garage and a guard was posted.” 

PSR ¶ 42. The Presentence Report goes on to state that the offense “appears to have occurred in 

an effort to support and bolster, what the jury found to be a ‘criminal enterprise[,]’ the Hells 

Angels and their reputation.” Id. Moreover, the Court had the benefit of presiding over 

defendant’s trial, and based on the evidence it heard, the Court is convinced beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the murder of Michael Walsh was a premeditated killing. Defendant’s failure to

accept the jury’s verdict, see Dkt. # 1066 at 10 (“Extraordinary and Compelling circumstances 

Mr. Rollness believes [sic] would also be regarding his actual innocence, regardless of the 

outcome of his trial . . .”), and the Court’s own determination of guilt, are evidence that 

defendant remains a danger to the community. In spite of the pandemic-related hardships faced 

by defendant and the impact on his family, the nature and circumstances of this offense and the 

need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, 

provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes, 

all disfavor granting compassionate release here.

It is clear from defendant’s many letters of support that he is beloved by his family and 

friends, see Dkt. # 1067 at 40–85, and the Court sympathizes with their desire to have defendant 

released. During the course of defendant’s trial, the Court was impressed by the Rollness 

family’s support of defendant and the dignity of Mrs. Rollness and her children in the 

courtroom. Defendant’s family is paying a steep price for defendant’s wrongdoing, for which 

they bear no responsibility. Defendant never should have put his family through the anguish 

they have experienced, and will continue to experience—just as he never should have put the 

family of Michael Walsh through the lifetime of horror they are enduring. See Dkt. # 1085-1 at 

2–5 (letters by several of Michael Walsh’s family members voicing their fervent opposition to 

any reduction in defendant’s sentence).

Defendant argues that he has served more time than any of his co-defendants, Dkt. 

# 1083 at 12, but none of his co-defendants were convicted of VICAR murder. PSR ¶¶ 8–11.

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 13 of 14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE - 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant also highlights that he has engaged in prosocial activities with, he claims, “no history 

of violence while serving his sentence.” Dkt. # 1083 at 12. Admittedly, defendant has engaged 

in an impressive number of education courses representing more than 2,400 hours of time. See

Dkt. # 1067 at 22–23. Additionally, defendant’s disciplinary history during incarceration is 

fairly limited, but defendant’s 2020 infraction for refusing a urinary analysis is concerning, as is 

his 2009 infraction for fighting, which would seem to contradict his assertion that he has served 

his sentence with no violence. Dkt. # 1085-2 at 2–4. Given that this Court presided over 

defendant’s trial, the Court heard the witnesses testify about defendant’s many acts of violence, 

threats of violence, and intimidation. See, e.g., Dkt. # 1085 at 14–15 (government summarizing 

witness testimony). And the Court remains concerned about the danger defendant presents and 

the need to protect the public from that danger. Accordingly, the Court finds that granting 

compassionate release would not be consistent with the sentencing factors set forward in 

§ 3553(a). The Court therefore DENIES defendant’s motion for compassionate release.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for compassionate release (Dkt. # 1066)

is DENIED. The parties’ respective motions to seal (Dkts. # 1086, # 1093) are GRANTED, as is 

the government’s motion for leave to file an over-length brief (Dkt. # 1084).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2021.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1095 Filed 09/30/21 Page 14 of 14