· By Brandon Sample · Court decisions
On November 10, 2026, Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Larry Dean Porter's motion for compassionate release. The case is United States v. Porter, No. 2:20-cr-95. The opinion and order decides this case. It is a district court order, not a published court of appeals decision, and it does not bind other courts. Read the decision (PDF).
What Mr. Porter asked the court to do
Mr. Porter filed the motion himself under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He also asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The court denied both requests.
He gave three reasons. His life expectancy is shorter than the sentence. His health has grown worse with age. He has stayed sober and returned to his faith.
He pleaded guilty on August 9, 2022, to conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, a drug trafficking conspiracy, and two counts of child sex trafficking. The court sentenced him to 480 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release. The order says he has served roughly seven years of that sentence.
He wrote to the warden on November 24, 2025. The Bureau of Prisons did not answer. The government did not dispute exhaustion, and the court assumed the request had lapsed under the 30-day rule in § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Age did not meet the guideline
Mr. Porter is 75. The court measured his request against USSG § 1B1.13(b)(2). That provision covers age when the person is at least 65, health has seriously declined because of aging, and the person has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of the term of imprisonment, whichever is less. The court said roughly seven years of a forty-year sentence does not meet that time-served requirement.
Medical records did not meet it either
The order lists an aortic aneurysm, a retrosternal goiter, possible early liver cirrhosis, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and hyperglycemia. The presentence report already listed COPD, asthma, an aneurysm, hepatitis C, seizures, high cholesterol, and hypertension. He uses a wheelchair. He told the court he does not need help bathing, walking, or using the toilet. The Bureau has provided care, including a surgical consultation and an angioplasty.
USSG § 1B1.13(b)(1) is the medical part of the policy statement. Subsection (b)(1)(B) covers a serious condition, impairment, or decline from aging that substantially limits self-care in prison when recovery is not expected. Subsection (b)(1)(C) covers a condition that needs long-term or specialized care the prison is not providing, when going without that care risks serious deterioration or death. The court said Mr. Porter's records did not meet (b)(1)(B) or (b)(1)(C).
The order also follows Sixth Circuit cases for a separate point: health facts already weighed at sentencing are not a new extraordinary and compelling reason. That is this court's application of those cases. It is not a new rule from a court of appeals.
The order cites Rutherford v. United States for the point that a Sentencing Commission policy statement has to stay consistent with the statute. Rutherford held that a sentencing change Congress made non-retroactive cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason, alone or combined with other facts. Mr. Porter did not ask for release because of a non-retroactive sentencing change. Our post on Rutherford explains that holding.
Sobriety and faith were not enough on their own
The court said rehabilitation, including sobriety and a return to faith, cannot be the only ground for release. That limit is in 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) and USSG § 1B1.13(d).
The sentencing factors still weighed against release
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) also requires the court to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The order says that even if an extraordinary and compelling reason existed, those factors would still weigh against release. The court pointed to the seriousness of the offenses, the share of the sentence served (about 15 percent), and the risk to the public. The order states that Mr. Porter pleaded guilty to conduct the court described as physically and sexually abusing numerous minor and adult victims. This post does not add facts beyond that description.
What this means for a motion
A district court order decides one case. Another judge can weigh the same kinds of facts differently. Age, a list of diagnoses, and time without a disciplinary record each have to match the text of § 1B1.13. If the health facts were already in the presentence report, this order shows one court treating that history as a reason to deny. The motion still has to address both the extraordinary-reason test in § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the § 3553(a) factors.
Source: Read the source
