It wasn’t as much of an order as a message for future litigants. Don’t bring disingenuous compassionate release petitions. Here, the defendant argued that denial of RDAP “residential drug abuse treatment program” was a violation of his constitutional rights – despite not meeting the basic requirements for the program.

In United States v. Larry Everett Smith, the court went out of its way to make an example of a compassionate release petition. Defendants should heed this warning, especially concerning appeals for compassionate release and attempts to gain entry into special programs like the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) without a legitimate basis.

Larry Everett Smith, convicted of a healthcare fraud scheme amounting to over $24.9 million, sought compassionate release, citing preexisting medical conditions and a desire for substance abuse treatment through RDAP. The court’s analysis and subsequent ruling provide a comprehensive look into the judicial perspective on such appeals, revealing a stern message against the misuse of compassionate release mechanisms.

There are a few other lessons we can learn from the opinion.

Key Findings from the Appeal:

Preexisting Medical Conditions and Compassionate Release: The court underscored that medical conditions known at sentencing, including those potentially requiring future medical interventions like surgery, cannot retroactively become extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. This decision reaffirms that compassionate release cannot be based on conditions considered and accounted for during the original sentencing.
Manipulation of Substance Abuse History: Smith’s attempts to retroactively amend his pre-sentence report (PSR) to fabricate or exaggerate a history of substance abuse to qualify for RDAP were explicitly criticized. This action was seen as an attempt to manipulate the system, which the court decidedly rejected, emphasizing that such post-sentencing adjustments seeking to alter the sentencing record are impermissible, especially when an appeal is pending.
A Strong Judicial Message: Through its ruling, the court clearly said it would not tolerate attempts to game the system for favorable outcomes such as early release or program admission. This decision highlights the court’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and fairness of the judicial process, ensuring that compassionate release and related programs serve their intended purpose without being exploited.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Boundaries: The court also touched on jurisdictional limits, affirming that the district court lacked the authority to amend the sentencing record as Smith had requested. This part of the decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the separation of judicial powers.
Rejection of RDAP and Due Process Claims: Finally, the court dismissed claims denying RDAP entry violated Smith’s due process rights. This reinforced the discretionary nature of such program admissions and early release decisions, which are squarely within the purview of the Bureau of Prisons.

Learn how to file a compassionate release petition:

About the Author

Ronald Chapman II is the founder of Chapman, Dowling & Mallek and a top-rated Michigan federal criminal defense attorney who represents clients in federal courts nationwide. His practice is focused on defending individuals and organizations in complex federal prosecutions, including white-collar criminal matters and healthcare fraud investigations.

Throughout his career, Mr. Chapman has helped clients avoid more than $550 million in potential penalties, primarily in cases involving physicians, healthcare providers, executives, and professionals facing federal charges. He is widely recognized for his work as a Michigan healthcare fraud defense attorney, as well as for his results in white collar criminal defense in Michigan, where cases often involve parallel civil, regulatory, and criminal exposure.