Judge cuts 74.5-year stacked sentence to time served (2021)

Originally published May 30, 2021. Statements about the law were updated in October 2026; the box below gives today’s rules.

What the law says now (October 2026). A federal judge can reduce a sentence for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons (reasons that are especially unusual and convincing). You must first ask the warden in writing. You can file in court 30 days after the warden gets the request, or sooner if you finish the Bureau of Prisons’ appeals (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). The judge also weighs the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See who may seek compassionate release.

Changes in sentencing law. In Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026), the Supreme Court held that when Congress makes a sentencing change non-retroactive (meaning it does not apply to people already sentenced), such as the First Step Act’s end of “stacked” § 924(c) sentences, the gap between an old sentence and today’s sentence cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason, alone or combined with other reasons. Some older posts here describe court wins on that theory; those wins are history, not today’s law.
Rehabilitation. By law, rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). It can be weighed together with other reasons (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d)).

Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.

In May 2021, a federal judge in Oklahoma reduced Foreman’s 894-month (74.5-year) stacked sentence to time served. At the time, the court found that his rehabilitation, together with the gap between his sentence and what he would get after the First Step Act, was an extraordinary and compelling reason.

Stacked Sentences

United States v. Foreman

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99593

The crime and the sentence

In September 2002, Time Foreman and two co-defendants robbed the Arvest Bank in Kansas, Oklahoma. After his arrest, Foreman made several jail calls trying to influence what potential witnesses would say.

A grand jury charged him with conspiracy, aiding and abetting bank robbery, attempted carjacking, and carjacking, plus three violations arising from the bank robbery and carjacking. He was also charged with witness tampering, retaliation against a witness, and obstruction of justice.

His two co-defendants pleaded guilty and testified against him. The jury convicted Foreman of the armed bank robbery, carjackings, violations, witness tampering, retaliation, and obstruction of justice.

The court sentenced him to a total of 894 months, including a consecutive 84-month term as to his first and two consecutive 300-month terms. These stacked convictions made up much of his sentence.

How the First Step Act changed stacking

If Foreman were sentenced today for the same crimes, his sentence would be much shorter because of the First Step Act of 2018. That law made major changes to help avoid excessively long prison sentences.

Before the First Step Act, a higher mandatory minimum applied to any conviction after a person’s first one, even if the later conviction was part of the same case. That is what happened to Foreman.

His 894-month (74.5-year) sentence included 57 years required by his “stacked” convictions. Without that mandatory add-on, he would have received 38.5 years instead of 74.5, a 36-year difference. He has already served about 19 years.

His rehabilitation in prison

In these cases, one of the most important factors is rehabilitation after sentencing, meaning how a person behaves in prison and works to better themselves.

Foreman has taken full responsibility for his crimes. He has completed well over 550 hours of classes and programs on a wide range of subjects and has worked to help both himself and others change.

Over the past 18 years, he earned his GED and has served as a mentor in the Mental Health Companion Skills Program. He also has training as a welder and carpenter.

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) noted that Foreman “frequently volunteers to facilitate self-help classes to inmates involving topics related to assertive communication and deterring from the criminal lifestyle,” and that “Foreman is a compassionate, caring, and pro-social individual.” Based on testing and his grasp of the material, the BOP rated his risk of reoffending as low.

Why the judge said yes

The court pointed to Foreman’s rehabilitation, his lack of prior felony convictions or any criminal history, and his good behavior in prison.

At the time, the court held that these factors, together with the gap between his sentence and the sentences given for similar crimes after the First Step Act, were extraordinary and compelling circumstances that justified a reduction of his sentence to time served.

If you want help with a compassionate release request, book a consultation.