A L D

- 0 8 6 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 20

- 3 272

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. GILBERTO RAMOS, a/k/a GBay, Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( D.C. C riminal Action No. 5

- 15

- cr - 00272

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Leeson, Junior

________________________________ ____ Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action Pur suant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

o n February 4, 2021
Be fore: M C K E E , G R E E N A W A Y , J r
. , a n d B I B A S , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 24, 2021 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the f ull C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Pro se appellant Gilberto Ramos appeals the District Court’s order denyi ng his motion for compassionate release . The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
In 201 6 , Ramos was convicted of four counts involving the possession or distribution of methampheta mine and sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. Ramos appealed the criminal judgment but then voluntarily withdrew his appeal. See C.A. No.
16

- 1167.
In May 2020, Ramos filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i). See E CF No. 85. He argued that the District Court should release him because his asthma places him at an increased danger from the COVID

- 19 pa ndemic , he has changed his life for the better whi le in prison, and he wishe s to help care for his

son. The District Court denied the motion, concluding both that Ramos had not shown that “ extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction ” in sentence, § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i), and that the 18 U.S. C. § 3553 (a) factors counseled against release.
See ECF No. 91

. Ra mos filed a notice of appeal, and the Government has moved for summary affirmance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s
order for abuse of discre tion. See United States v. Pawlowski , 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir.3

20 20)

. We may summarily affirm if “no substantial question is presented” by the appeal.
3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. We will grant the Gove rnment’s motion. The compassionate

- release provision states that 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). B efore granting com passionate release, a district court must consider “ the factors set forth in [ 1 8 U.S.C. § ] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). Those factors include, among other things, “ the nature and circumstances of the offense and the h istory and characteristics of the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1), and the need for the sentence “ to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for th e offense ”; “ to afford adequate deterrence to crimina l conduct ”; and “t o protect the public from further crimes of the de fendant ,” § 3553(a)(2)(A)

– ( C ).
W e discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s conclusion that a number of the § 3553(a) fac tors weighed against granting compassionate release h ere. 1 As the Court explained, Ramos has a lengthy criminal history

— he had been convicted seven times before the methamphetamine offenses that led to his current incarceration

— which
includes several violent offenses. See ECF No. 91 at 10 (noting that “[t] he facts underlying his simple assault convictions, as well as his t heft conviction, are particularly

1 Based on thi s conclusion, we need not address whether “ extraordinary and compell ing reasons warrant ” a red uction in Ramos’s sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).4

violent and disturbing ”)

. The District Court thus did not err in finding that “ Ramos
pre sents a danger to the community if released .” Id. Nor can we sa y that the Court erred in treating Ramos ’s methamphetamine offense s as serious and militating against early
release. Finally, it was reasonable for the District Court to conclude that the fa ct that
Ramos still had about five

- and

- a - half years 2 of his sente nce remaining worked against him. See, e.g. , P awlowski , 967 F.3d at 330. We therefore do not have “a definite and
firm conviction that [the District Court] committed a clear error of judgm ent in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant f actors.” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Oddi v. Ford Motor Co. , 234 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion 3 and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

2 Ramos argu es that the District Court should have considered not the amount of time remaining on the s entence as initially imposed by the District Court, but on the time until he might be eligible to be admitted to a halfway house. Br. at 6. In P awlowski , we focuse d on the time remaining on the total sentence, explaining that “[b]ecause a defendant ’ s sen tence reflects the sentencing judge ’ s view of the § 3553(a) factors at the time of sentencing, the time remaining in that sentence may . . . inform whether immediate release would be consistent with those factors.” 967 F.3d at 331. In any event, even usi ng the alternative dates that Ramos proposes, we would not find that the District C ourt abused its discretion in denying his motion.

3 In its motion for summary acti on, the Government also sought permission to be relieved of its obligation to file a brief; that request is granted.