UNITED STATES v. CONWAY (2026)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION IN SENTENCE (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE) [62]

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Edward Conway's Motion for Reduction in Sentence (Compassionate Release) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), filed March 23, 2026 (“Motion”). [Dkt. 62]. The Court finds that Conway's three serious medical conditions—pancreatic cancer, hypertension, and blindness in one eye resulting from two corneal transplants—constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a reduction in his sentence because the Court has serious concerns about whether they can be managed effectively and humanely in his current custodial placement. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Motion and orders the remainder of Conway's sentence to be served on supervised release.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2024, Edward Conway pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Dkt. 30]. The guidelines range for Conway's sentence was 24–30 months' imprisonment, but the government recommended 57 months. [Dkt. 40] at 4; [Dkt. 36] at 3. On January 27, 2025, Judge Anderson sentenced Conway to 63 months, followed by 3 years of supervised release. [Dkt. 44]. Conway is currently serving his sentence at FCI Phoenix. Motion at 3, Ex. C; Opposition [Dkt. 69] at 4, Ex. A. He has served approximately 32 months of his sentence, and his conditional release date pursuant to the First Step Act is February 12, 2028. Id.

Conway is 48 years old. He suffers from three serious illnesses—pancreatic cancer, hypertension, and blindness in one eye resulting from two corneal transplants—that require frequent monitoring and medical intervention. See Motion at 4–16; Declaration of Alessio Pigazzi, MD (“Pigazzi Decl.”) [Dkt. 62-1]; Declaration of Robert DeMartini, MD, DABIM (“DeMartini Decl.”) [Dkt. 62-2]; Declaration of Russell Huang, MD (“Huang Decl.”) [Dkt. 62-3].

Pancreatic Cancer. Physicians first noticed a lesion on Conway's pancreas in June 2024 prior to his incarceration. Pigazzi Decl. ¶ 16. Once in custody, BOP sent Conway for an ultrasound in December 2024. Id. ¶ 17. He was then ordered a CT scan, but it was never performed. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. During a hospitalization related to his hypertension seven months later, he received an abdomen scan that recorded a pancreatic lesion. Id. ¶ 23. A CT scan was performed on August 29, 2025, which indicated a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Id. ¶ 24. The physician who reviewed the scan results recommended a surgery consultation and biopsy. Id. ¶ 26. Four and a half months later, Conway had a surgical consultation with a general surgeon, and his tumor was biopsied two weeks later. Id. ¶¶ 27, 29. The biopsy diagnosed the tumor as a grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor located on the head of the patient's pancreas—approximately a year and a half after finding the pancreatic lesion. Id. ¶ 29. Conway's expert, Dr. Pigazzi, opines that the delay in diagnosing his pancreatic cancer fell below the standard of care. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15, 18, 25, 31.

The surgery for this type of pancreatic tumor is known as a Whipple procedure, which is “widely considered one of the most demanding and complex operations in gastrointestinal surgery.” Id. ¶¶ 32–33. The procedure is recommended to be done in a “high-volume” facility where the surgery is performed frequently by surgeons with expertise. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. As of Conway's filing of the Motion, the procedure had yet to be scheduled. Motion at 5. However, on the day of the hearing on the Motion—May 11, 2026—Conway could not appear via Zoom because he was taken to a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona due to elevated blood pressure and was scheduled for surgery. [Dkt. 108] at 1. Two days later, he underwent a Whipple procedure to address his cancerous pancreatic tumor. Id. The procedure was performed by a general surgeon at Honor Health Deer Valley Medical Center where he had been receiving his care. Id. Dr. Pigazzi believes Honor Health is not a high-volume facility, and is not equipped to handle Conway's surgery or post-surgery care. Pigazzi Decl. ¶ 37–38.

The surgery in custody did not go well. Conway suffered life-threatening complications, and developed a blood clot in a liver artery. Indeed, doctors were concerned that his kidneys were failing. [Dkt. 108] at 2. He had a second surgery on May 15 to remove the blood clot. Id. Still, he was in critical condition at risk of liver failure and possibly would need a liver transplant. Id. As of May 20, Conway's condition was improving: his abdomen was closed, the blood clot was removed, and he no longer required kidney failure treatment. Id. However, he remained intubated and his doctors were concerned a portion of the cancer remained in his pancreas. Id. at 2–3.

Hypertension. Conway has longstanding “resistant” hypertension (high blood pressure). DeMartini Decl. ¶ 12. He had an ischemic stroke five years ago when he was 43 years old and suffered end-organ damage. Id. ¶ 13. While in custody, he has been hospitalized several times for blood pressure-related conditions. Id. ¶¶ 28–29, 39. He is prescribed six blood pressure medications, reflecting the “severity and recalcitrant nature of his hypertension.” Id. ¶ 12. Conway has not had access to his prescribed medications on six occasions totaling over 20 weeks in the past year. Declaration of Edward Conway (“Conway Decl.”) [Dkt. 62-5] ¶ 18; see also DeMartini Decl. ¶ 24. While Conway's expert Dr. DeMartini believes that monitoring of his hypertension “should be done daily,” his blood pressure was taken only 13 times between March 2025 and January 2026. Declaration of Anya Goldstein (“Goldstein Decl.”) [Dkt. 62-6] ¶ 13, Ex. H [Dkt. 65]. Dr. DeMartini opines that these actions are “below the standard of care” and “dangerous.” DeMartini Decl. ¶ 38.

Partial Blindness. Conway entered BOP custody having already had a corneal transplant and glaucoma surgery. Huang Decl. ¶ 12. While in custody, in August 2024, he experienced severe eye pain, and a BOP optometrist recommendation he have a consult with an ophthalmologist, but this consult did not occur until a month later after he complained of severe eye pain again. Id. ¶¶ 14–18. The ophthalmologist immediately removed several loose sutures and recommended another corneal transplant to correct his prior transplant's graft failure. Id. ¶ 19. Following the surgery, BOP failed to refill his prescription eye medications for several months. Id. ¶¶ 22–23; Conway Decl. ¶ 19. Conway continued to experience eye pain, and a visit to the ophthalmologist in September 2024 confirmed his second corneal transplant failed. Huang Decl. ¶ 18.

He lost most vision in his right eye and is now partially blind. Id. ¶ 44. Conway's expert Dr. Huang believes that BOP's lack of medical intervention and failure to provide him with prescription eye medication cause both the first and second corneal graft failures. Id. ¶ 9, 19, 27.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a federal court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)), except “in limited circumstances set out by federal statute,” United States v. King, 24 F.4th 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2022). Conway seeks to modify his sentence under the “compassionate release” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) as amended by the First Step Act (“FSA”). In relevant part, § 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a court to “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 [ ] extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction ․ and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).¹

Under policy statement U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, “extraordinary and compelling reasons” include the defendant's “medical circumstances.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1). Relevant here, this means that “[t]he defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.” Id. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). “Extraordinary and compelling reasons” also includes “any other circumstance or combination of circumstances that ․ are similar in gravity” to those specifically enumerated. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(5).

Prior to granting a motion for compassionate release, a court must also determine that “[t]he 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)[.]” Id. § 1B1.13(a)(2).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

The government does not dispute that Conway's medical conditions “meet the threshold of an extraordinary and compelling reason to alter his sentence.” Opposition at 1. Rather, it argues that Conway is being adequately treated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), so his release is not warranted. Id. The record before the Court shows otherwise.

Conway has shown that BOP has delayed providing him with evaluations and treatment that puts him at serious risk of deterioration in health or death. Indeed, although Conway has now received the Whipple procedure, it was performed by a general surgeon not at a high-volume facility, and Conway experienced the very life-threatening complications he sought to avoid by bringing this Motion. His doctors also have indicated there may still be cancer in his pancreas. His cancer requires the exact sort of “specialized care” contemplated by the guidelines. See United States v. Greer, No. 2:13-cr-20110-1, 2025 WL 510229, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2025) (finding extraordinary circumstances where defendant had end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis and kidney transplant).

Even before that, Conway received the CT scan to diagnose his pancreatic cancer over a year after BOP became aware of a potential problem, risking a deadly progression of his cancer. BOP's failure to consistently administer Conway's prescribed medications for hypertension and corneal surgery has clearly led to multiple hospitalizations and a significantly deteriorating condition.

In sum, the Court agrees that “[t]he complicated care Mr. Conway currently requires, and the highly skilled coordination of practitioners going forward, is certain to be beyond the capabilities of the BOP.” See Declaration of Janet M. Perdue (“Perdue Decl.”) ¶ 13; see also Pigazzi Decl. ¶ 44; DeMartini Decl. ¶ 68; Huang Decl. ¶ 48. Conway has adequately established there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. See United States v. Simpson, No. 3:97-cr-02901-BTM, 2024 WL 5193853, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2024); United States v. Caminos, 472 F. Supp. 3d 802, 805–06 (D. Haw. 2020).

B. Applicable § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors and Danger to the Community

The Court has considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and concludes that the reduced sentence set forth below is consistent with the requirement that courts “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to effectuate the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court has specifically considered all the sentencing factors in making this determination, but highlights those that are particularly relevant here.

First, as to the history and characteristics of the defendant, the Court recognizes that Conway had a difficult upbringing. His father was mentally, physically, and verbally abusive to him, his siblings, and his mother, and at age thirteen he ran away from home to escape the abuse. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) [Dkt. 40] at 15. Conway has struggled with substance abuse, and at the time of the instant offense he reports he was intoxicated with alcohol. Id. at 18. During his time in custody, Conway has participated in training and educational opportunities and is pursuing a degree in business administration. Perdue Decl. ¶ 46; Goldstein Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C [Dkt. 62-9]; id. ¶ 9, Ex. D [Dkt. 62-10]; id. ¶ 10, Ex. E [Dkt. 62-11]; id. ¶ 11, Ex. F [Dkt. 62-12]. He is actively working on his substance abuse issues through RDAP and reports that he intends to continue treatment upon his release. Goldstein Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C; id. ¶ 7, Ex. B [Dkt. 62-8]. As demonstrated during oral argument on the Motion, Conway has family members who are willing to support him upon his re-entry into the community.

Next, the Court considers the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public form further crimes of the defendant. The offense for which Conway was sentenced is very serious, and he has several prior convictions involving firearms. However, given Conway's positive programming in prison, strong family support, and deteriorating health issues, the Court finds that he does not present a danger to the community. Moreover, the Court intends for Conway to serve the remainder of his sentence on supervised release where he will be subject to highly specific conditions of release. These conditions further address any outstanding issues regarding whether Conway poses a danger. See Simpson, 2024 WL 5193853, at *3.

The Court must also consider the need for the sentence imposed to provide the defendant with needed medical care in the most effective manner. As detailed above, Conway suffers from multiple severe and life-threatening illnesses. The record reflects that BOP has not provided him with care effectively, including suffering near-death complications from the Whipple procedure.

Finally, as to the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines, the Court notes that the guidelines range for Conway's sentence was 24–30 months' imprisonment. Conway has already served more than the upper end of this range.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Conway's Motion is granted and the Court reduces his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) as follows:

• Defendant Conway is to be released forthwith.

• The remaining portion of Conway's sentence of imprisonment, which ends on his currently-projected release date of February 12, 2028, will be served on supervised release.

• During the period of supervised release, Conway will be subject to the conditions of supervised release set forth in the February 5, 2025 Judgment and Commitment Order [Dkt. 44].

FOOTNOTES

1.   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) also requires that “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.” Conway has satisfied this requirement because more than 30 days have passed since his February 20, 2026 request to the warden. See Motion at 17; Goldstein Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A [Dkt. 62-7].

Hernán D. Vera, United States District Judge