CLD-148 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 21-1715

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. NATHANIEL DA-MEIR COLES, a/k/a DAZ, a/k/a D, Appellant

___________________ _________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:14-cr-00496-003) District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh

___________________ _________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circu it LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 12, 2022 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 17, 2022)

__________

OPINION *

__________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an op inion of the full Court and pu rsuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Appellant Nathaniel Coles, proceeding pro se, appeals th e denial of his motion for compassionate release filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Government’s motion and w ill summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. 1
I. In 2017, Coles was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the in tent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in viola tion of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He later pleaded guilty to additional drug traffi cking offenses in a separate criminal case. The District Court consolidated the cases fo r sentencing and sentenced Cole s to a term of 240 months’ incarceration in one case to run concurrently with a 120-month sentence in the other. His anticipated release date is in 2031 and, as of the date of this writing, his direct appeal is pending. See United States v. Co les, C.A. No. 19-2590 (3d Cir.). Coles filed the motion for compassionate re lease here at issue in 2021, arguing that, if released, he would become the prim ary caregiver to his mo ther who was 65 years old at the time and suffering from a variety of medical conditions. Coles, then 38 years old, also contended that he was at high ri sk of serious illness from COVID-19 in prison because of his obesity and hi story as a smoker. Moreover, he argued that the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed in fa vor of his release because he has served a substantial portion of his sent ence, is no longer a danger to the community, has taken

1 We also grant the Government’s requests fo r leave to file its mo tion for summary action and to be excused from filing a brief.3 advantage of educational, vo cational, and rehabilitative programs, and has not incurred any disciplinary actions or misconduc ts during his time in prison. The District Court denied Coles’ motion, reasoning that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons justif ying release because, among other things, Coles was only 38 years old and in generally good health despite his mild obesity and smoking history, there were no confirmed active COVID-19 cases among inmates within Coles’ prison and only one among staff at the time, and Coles did not show that his mother required immediate care or that he was her only possible caregiver. The District Court also concluded that the § 3553(a) fact ors weighed against rele ase. Coles timely appealed and has filed a pro se brief. The Government has moved for summary affirmance.
II. We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We re view a district court’s decision to deny a motion for compassionate re lease for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 ( 3d Cir. 2020). Thus, “we will not disturb the District Court’s decision unless there is a de finite and firm conviction that it committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” Id. (quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). We may take summary4 action if the appeal presents no substantial question. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P.
10.6.
III. A district court “may reduce [a federa l inmate’s] term of imprisonment” and “impose a term of probation or supervised re lease” 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, a district cour t must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) “to the extent that they are applicable.” See § 3582(c)(1)(A). Those factors include, among other things, “the natu re and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1), a nd the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”; “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”; and “to protect the public from further crim es of the defendant,” § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). We discern no abuse of discretion in the Di strict Court’s decision. Even if Coles demonstrated extraordinary and compelling r easons justifying a sentence reduction, the District Court reasonably concluded that the § 3553(a) factors counseled against release. Namely, the District Court pointed to the se riousness of Coles’ crimes, which involved two separate conspiracies to obtain substantia l quantities of cocaine, his history of eight prior convictions—including two prior cont rolled substance offenses, corrupting the morals of a child, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon—and the fact that he had served only approximately one-third of his 240 -month sentence at the time of the District Court’s decision. See Pawlowski, 967 F. 3d at 331 (“Because a defendant’s sentence5 reflects the sentencing judge’s vi ew of the § 3553(a) factors at the time of sentencing, the time remaining in that sentence may . . . inform whether [compassionate] release would be consistent with those factors.”). Alth ough the record indicates that Coles has not incurred any disciplinary infractions in pris on and has taken steps towards rehabilitation, we cannot hold that the District Court committed a “clear error of judgment” in concluding that those considera tions failed to outweigh others counseling against release. See id. at 330 (internal quota tion marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.