Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-24-02789/USCOURTS-ca3-24-02789-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wesley Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

BLD-045 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-2789

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

WESLEY THOMAS,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-15-cr-00121-003)

District Judge: Gerald J. Pappert

____________________________________

Submitted by the Clerk for possible dismissal as untimely

and on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 5, 2024

Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 11, 2024 )

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 24-2789 Document: 9 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2024
2

Wesley Thomas appeals pro se from the District Court’s order denying his motion 

for compassionate release. The United States moved to summarily affirm the District 

Court’s judgment and to be excused from filing a brief. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. We 

grant the motion.

In 2015, Thomas pleaded guilty to four counts of Hobbs Act robbery, see 18 

U.S.C. § 1951(a), and two counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a 

crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The District Court sentenced him to 180 

months’ imprisonment. In 2020, Thomas moved for compassionate release, which the 

District Court denied. We summarily affirmed the District Court’s judgment. See United 

States v. Thomas, 854 F. App’x 421 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam). 

In 2024, Thomas filed another motion for compassionate release. He submitted 

that his father’s Parkinson’s disease had advanced significantly and that his father needed 

his care. Thomas also highlighted his rehabilitation and low risk of recidivism. 

Additionally, Thomas claimed that over the past few years, he had experienced harsh 

confinement conditions due to COVID-19. Finally, Martin re-argued that his sentence 

was excessive, and that if he had been sentenced today, he would have received a lesser 

sentence because of the First Step Act. 

The District Court denied the motion. It found that although Thomas’s father’s 

need for care presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, the factors in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) nonetheless weighed against granting the motion. The Court 

determined that Thomas’s sentence remained appropriate because he “helped facilitate 

four armed robberies, during which innocent people were threatened at gunpoint, at times 

Case: 24-2789 Document: 9 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2024
3

in front of their family members.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 175 at 3-4. The Court recognized 

Thomas’s “noteworthy prison record” over his nine years of incarceration but determined 

that it did “not outweigh the need for the sentence to appropriately reflect the seriousness 

of his crimes, promote respect for the law and justly punish him for his role in these 

violent offenses.” Id. at 4-5. 

Martin appealed. The United States moved for summary action, and Martin 

opposed the motion. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may summarily 

affirm the District Court’s judgment if the appeal presents no substantial question. See

3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6; Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). 

We review the District Court’s denial of the compassionate release motion for abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). We will 

affirm the District Court’s judgment “unless there is a definite and firm conviction that it 

committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the 

relevant factors.” Id. (cleaned up). 

Under the compassionate release statute, a district court “may reduce the term of 

imprisonment” and “impose a term of probation or supervised release” if it finds that 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Before granting compassionate release, the court must consider the 

applicable factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). These factors include “the 

nature and circumstances of the offense,” the “history and characteristics of the 

defendant,” and the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to 

Case: 24-2789 Document: 9 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2024
4

promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” Id.

§ 3553(a)(1), 2(A).

We discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s conclusion that the 

§ 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release.1

 As the District Court 

reasonably explained, the seriousness of Thomas’s crimes and the need to provide 

punishment for Thomas’s conduct outweighed Thomas’s good behavior while 

incarcerated. Though Thomas argues that the District Court should have placed more 

weight on his rehabilitation and his father’s health condition, we cannot conclude that the 

Court abused its discretion when weighing the factors. See Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 329-

31; see also United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 543 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that 

our review of the application of the § 3553(a) factors is “highly deferential”). 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

1 Based on this conclusion, we need not address Thomas’s “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

Case: 24-2789 Document: 9 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/11/2024