BLD-168 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 23-1636 

___________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

KEVIN HILLER, 

also known as KEV, 

also known as KEVEN HILLER, 

 Appellant 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:06-cr-00096-004) 

District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno 

____________________________________ 

Submitted 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 

June 29, 2023 

Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: July 19, 2023) 

_________ 

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.
2 

Pro se appellant Kevin Hiller appeals from the District Court’s order denying his 

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). The Government has 

filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily 

affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

In 2007, a federal jury found Hiller guilty of a firearm count and two Hobbs Act 

counts stemming from his role in an attempted robbery of an armored car. The District 

Court sentenced him to 216 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. 

Hiller unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal, see United States v. Hiller, 454 F. 

App’x 115, 115 (3d Cir. 2011), and via 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see C.A. No. 14-1366. He has 

since filed multiple applications to file second or successive § 2255 motions, all of which 

have been unsuccessful. 

In 2021, Hiller filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1), citing his age, health issues and vulnerability to COVID-19, entitlement to 

additional credit, rehabilitation efforts, and improper classification as a career offender. 

The Government opposed the motion. The District Court denied the motion, concluding 

that Hiller had not presented extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release and 

that release was not warranted upon consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

A year later, Hiller filed another motion, arguing that he was entitled to release 

because his health conditions (hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or 

asthma) made him more vulnerable to COVID-19 complications and because he was 
3 

entitled to additional credit for time served.1

 The District Court denied it, concluding that 

Hiller failed to assert “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release. Hiller now 

appeals. The Government filed a motion for summary affirmance. Hiller did not respond 

to the motion, and the response time has passed.2

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A), a 

District Court may reduce a sentence if extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant 

such a reduction. We review a District Court’s order denying a motion for 

compassionate release for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb that decision unless 

the District Court committed a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Pawlowski, 

967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). We may summarily affirm a District Court’s decision 

if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 

247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

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

not present extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. First, while Hiller claimed 

that his health conditions made him more susceptible to complications related to COVID19, “the mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to 

1

 While Hiller styled this filing as a “reconsideration request,” the District Court treated it 

as a new motion for compassionate release, and we will do the same. 

2

 While Hiller filed his notice of appeal more than 14 days after the District Court entered 

its order, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), the Government has not objected to the timeliness of 

the appeal, and we thus decline to dismiss it, see United States v. Muhammud, 701 F.3d 

109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 4(b) is not jurisdictional). Hiller’s motion 

to withdraw the appeal is denied. 
4 

a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate release.” United 

States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3rd Cir. 2020). Hiller did not demonstrate that any 

additional risks posed by his health conditions warranted compassionate release. See

United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 260–62 (3d Cir. 2021) (finding no clear error in 

the determination that defendant’s age, rehabilitation, and general susceptibility to 

COVID-19 were not compelling reasons warranting compassionate release). We also

agree with the District Court that Hiller’s arguments that he was entitled to additional 

credit for time served and that counsel performed deficiently at sentencing are not ones 

that may be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See id. at 260–

61 (stating that the “duration of a lawfully imposed sentence does not create an 

extraordinary or compelling circumstance”); United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 

187–88 (5th Cir. 2023). 

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion for summary action and will 

affirm the District Court’s judgment.