UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUAN ANTONIO HUNTER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00442-TDS-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2021 Decided: February 8, 2022

Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Antonio Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Antonio Hunter, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as 

amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 

5239. Hunter moved for immediate compassionate release based on his many health 

conditions, including a Type B aortic dissection, hypertension, acute kidney injury, 

hypoxia, and stage three chronic kidney disease. Hunter’s motion was also predicated on 

his particular susceptibility to serious illness should he contract COVID-19. Although the 

district court assumed Hunter’s medical conditions constituted “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” for compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the court 

denied Hunter’s motion after an assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. For the 

reasons explained below, we vacate and remand.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Hunter’s 

compassionate release motion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021); 

United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider 

judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous 

factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 

151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court also abuses 

its discretion “when it ignores unrebutted, legally significant evidence.” In re Search 

Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 171 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).
3

We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying Hunter’s 

compassionate release motion for two reasons. First, the district court erroneously stated 

that the Government opposed Hunter’s motion. The Government did not oppose the 

motion; rather, the Government deferred to the district court as to whether Hunter’s early 

release was appropriate in light of his significant health problems. Second, the district 

court’s ruling that Hunter still poses a danger to the community did not account for the 

potentially lifelong physical limitations that Hunter will experience as a result of his aortic 

dissection. Indeed, the district court failed to acknowledge that Hunter’s violent conduct 

both inside and outside of prison—on which the court based its future dangerousness 

ruling—occurred before he suffered the aortic dissection. Accordingly, we will vacate the 

district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

On remand, the district court should also more thoroughly assess Hunter’s argument

concerning his particular susceptibility to serious illness should he contract COVID-19. 

Although the district court acknowledged that Hunter’s compassionate release motion was 

predicated in part on the COVID-19 pandemic, the court dismissed Hunter’s reliance on 

the pandemic because he refused to be vaccinated. However, Hunter has represented on 

appeal that he received the COVID-19 vaccine after the district court entered its order.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order denying Hunter’s compassionate 

release motion and remand for further proceedings. By this disposition, we express no 

view as to the ultimate merits of Hunter’s compassionate release motion. We dispense
4

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED