Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 6:15-cr-00344-AA-1 

6:15-cr-00345-AA-2 

 Plaintiff, 6:15-cr-00346-AA-2 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 vs. 

LARRY ALAN LARSEN 

 Defendant. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

 Before the Court is defendant Larry Alan Larsen’s Renewed Motion to Reduce 

Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Compassionate Release). Doc. 61.1 

In 2017, the Court sentenced defendant to 108 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ 

supervised release after his guilty plea to three federal charges of conspiring to steal 

federal property and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He is currently serving 

1 All record citations in this Opinion are to the docket in Case No. 6:15-cr-00344-AA-1. 

Case 6:15-cr-00344-AA Document 67 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

his sentence at Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Sheridan and his projected 

release date is May 18, 2023. 

 On July 21, 2021, defendant filed a Motion for Compassionate Release. The 

Court denied the motion without prejudice and with leave to renew if defendant’s 

circumstances changed. On September 3, 2021, defendant renewed his motion, 

contending that his circumstances had changed enough to warrant compassionate 

release. In his renewed motion, defendant asks the Court to reduce his sentence to 

time served or, in the alternative, to 100 months. For the reasons that follow, this 

motion is DENIED. 

STANDARDS 

Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if it finds that 

two conditions are met: (1) that “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons warrant 

such a reduction” and (2) “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” If the court finds that those 

conditions are met, before granting a sentence reduction, it must “consider[] the 

factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) to the extent applicable[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (per 

curiam) (“[A]lthough a district court must perform this sequential inquiry before it 

grants compassionate release, a district court that properly denies compassionate 

release need not evaluate each step.”). The Sentencing Commission’s policy 

statement regarding sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is found at U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13. On a defendant’s direct motion for compassionate release, the policy 

Case 6:15-cr-00344-AA Document 67 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER 

statement “may inform a district court’s discretion . . . but [it is] not binding.” United 

States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). As a result, the court may consider 

any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a defendant might raise. 

Id. 

DISCUSSION

 Defendant’s renewed motion presents three grounds that he contends present 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. First, defendant asserts that his 

health conditions, including obesity and a positive COVID-19 test on September 3, 

2021, put him at greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Defendant also claims 

to have hypertension, but the most recent medical records before the Court show his 

blood pressure as 127/78 and note that this would only place him at risk of developing 

hypertension. Defendant is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, significantly 

decreasing his chance of developing severe illness from the disease and defendant’s 

recorded vitals during quarantine suggest that his symptoms have been relatively 

mild. These factors do not present extraordinary and compelling reasons necessary 

to grant a Motion for Compassionate Release. 

 Next, defendant details the harsh conditions at FCI Sheridan. While the 

conditions alleged by the defendant–long periods of isolated confinement, medical and 

other neglect by staff, and a brutal quarantine area–are certainly not something the 

Court could have contemplated at sentencing, they do not, on their own or in 

combination with defendant’s current health status, satisfy the extraordinary and 

compelling reasons requirement for compassionate release. See United States v. 

Case 6:15-cr-00344-AA Document 67 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 – OPINION AND ORDER 

Barber, 466 F.Supp.3d 1127, 1131-32 (D.OR. 2020) (Defendant’s showing of his 

particular vulnerability to severe COVID warranted compassionate release); United 

States v. Larsen, Case No. 6:15-CR-00344-AA-1, *3 (D.Or. 2021) (“defendant’s 

arguments [concerning harsh lockdown conditions] are more appropriately addressed 

under considerations of applicable sentencing factors under § 3553(a), which this 

Court need not reach absent a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons.”). 

 Defendant also points to his lack of rehabilitative programming due to the long 

periods of confinement and other precautions taken in the face of the COVID-19 

pandemic. In particular, defendant wishes to transfer to the Northwest Regional Reentry Center (“NWRRC”) at the earliest possible time so he may participate in drug 

treatment. BOP’s current policy is that an incarcerated individual is not eligible for 

transfer to a re-entry facility until that individual has no more than 19 months left 

on their sentence. Under this policy, defendant has less than seven months before he 

will be within the nineteen-month eligibility window for transfer to NWRRC. The 

short time before defendant’s eligibility for transfer to NWRRC and the generalized 

nature of the conditions at FCI Sheridan lead this Court to conclude that defendant 

has not presented extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release at 

this time. 

CONCLUSION

 The Court finds that defendant has failed to show extraordinary and 

compelling reasons to warrant a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 

Case 6:15-cr-00344-AA Document 67 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 – OPINION AND ORDER 

3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Defendant’s Renewed Motion (Doc. 61) is therefore DENIED without 

prejudice to its renewal, especially if defendant’s health changes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _____ day of October 2021. 

__________________________ 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

18th

/s/Ann Aiken

Case 6:15-cr-00344-AA Document 67 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 5