D L D

- 0 8 0 NOT PRECE DENTIAL

UNITED STATE S COURT OF AP PEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 3 1 0 5

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KADEE M THOMAS,

Appel la nt

___________________

_________________

On Appeal f

ro m the District Cour t

of the V i r g i n I s l a n d s

( D.V.I

. C rim . No. 3:12

- cr

- 00002

- 00 3 )

District Judge: Honorable Robert A. M o lloy

_____ ______________

_______________

__

S ubmitted for Possible Dismissal a s U n t i m e l y U n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e

P r o c e d u r e 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) an d for Possible Su mmary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4

and I.O.P. 10.6

January 28, 2021

Before: J O R D A

N

, K R A U S E

, a n d P H I P P S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinio n f

iled : February 5, 2021 )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

OPINION *

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* Th is disposi tion is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does no t

consti tute binding precedent.2

PER CURIAM

K a deem Thomas i s a f

e d e r a l i n m a t e c u r r e n t l y c o n f i n e d a t F C I Y a zoo City L o w i n

M i s s i s s i p p i

. T h o m a s a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s C O V I D

- 1 9

- b a s e d m o t i o n f o r

c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

. W e w i l l a f f i r m

.

I

.

A jury sitting in the District C o u r t o f the Virgin Islands found Thomas guilty of

Hobbs Act cons pi racy, bank robbery, and possession of a firearm du ring the commission

of a crime of violence

. He received concurrent 60

- month sentences for the conspira cy an d

bank robbery c o n v i c t i o n s , and a consec u tive, mandatory

- minimum sentence of 84 mon ths

for the f i re arm c o n v i c t i o n

. Thomas ’ s direct appeal

, see United States v. Browne , 525 F.

App’x 21 3 (3d Cir. 2013) , and first m o t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2255 ( a )

, see United States

v. Thom as

, C .A. No. 17

- 3261 (3d Cir . A p ril 30, 2018 )

, w e r e u n s u c c e s s f u l

. 1

In A p ril 2020, T h o mas filed a pro s e motion for c ompassionate release under 18

U.S .C. § 3582 (c)(1)( A)( i)

, based on the pro liferation of COVID

- 19. T h e D i strict Cou rt

denied the motion withou t pre judice

, for failure to exhaust admin istrative remedies

.

Thomas refiled his mo ti on soon after

. H e c i t e d C O V I D

- 1 9 s t a t i s t i c s f o r Y a z o o

C i t y L o w a n d t h e B O P g e n e r a l l y

. H e n o t e d t h a t h e h a d s e r v e d 8 y e a r s o f a 1 2

- y e a r

s e n t e n c e

, t h a t h e h a d a c l e a n d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o r d w h i l e i n p r i s o n

, a n d t h a t h e h a d p l a n s f o r

f u t u r e e m p l o y m e n t ( a j o b w i t h a t r u c k i n g c o m

p a n y ) a n d r e s i d e n c y ( w i t h h i s m o t h e r )

.

1 Thomas is proj ect ed t o be released next year, on June 11, 20 22

.3

T h o m a s a l s o c l a i m e d t o h a v e a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n w o r t h y o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n

, t h o u g h h e d i d

n o t e l a b o r a t e a s t o w h a t t h a t c o n d i t i o n m i g h t b e

.

In response, the Government filed an op pos ition outlinin g a t l e n g t h the ste ps the

BOP has taken to control the spread of COVID

- 19 in federal p ris ons

. I t a l s o a r g u e d

,

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o d a i n United States v. Raia , 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020)

, t h a t n o

r e l i e f i s d u e b e c a u s e “ T h o m a s claims no medi cal or health co nditions ” a n d “ [ i ] n effect ”

c o n t e n d s “ t h a t the pandemic itself justifies his release . The success of such an argume nt

would necessitate the wholescale release of the entire federal prison population

. ” D C

E C F N o

. 1 9 1 a t 6

.

Th omas replied, a rguing that CO VI D

- 19 rat es h a d b e e n part icula rly h i g h at Y a zoo

City L o w

. T h o m a s d i d n o t r e f u t e t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n t h a t h e f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f

y a

m e d i c a l o r o t h e r r e a s o n w h y h e m i g h t b e m o r e s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n f e c t i o n t h a n a n y o t h e r

B O P i n m a t e ; i n s t e a d

, h e g a t h e r e d a h a n d f u l o f a n e c d o t e s o f s e e m i n g l y h e a l t h y p e o p l e

c a t c h i n g a n d s u c c u m b i n g t o t h e v i r u s

.

The District Court agre ed with the Govern ment ’ s a r g u m e n t s and denied relief by

order entere d on S e p t e m b e r 1 5

, 2 0 2 0

. S e e D C E C F N o

. 1 9 4

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o ur t e x p l a i n e d

t h a t i t w a s T h o ma s ’ s “ burden to sh ow he is entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to

S ection 3582(c)(1)

, ” a n d t h a t h e h a d n o t s h o u l d e r e d t h a t b u r d e n

. D C E C F N o

. 1 9 3 a t 4

.

R e l y i n g o n R a i a

, t h e Dist rict Court determined that T h o m a s fa i l e d t o de monstrate “ any

e xtraordinary or c ompelling reasons to reduce his sentence

. ” D C E C F N o

. 1 9 3 a t 5

. T h e4

D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d a s w e l l t h a t

, e v e n i f T h o m a s h a d a d v a n c e d a c o m p e l l i n g b a s i s

f o r r e l i e f

, h e n e v e r t h e l e s s f

a i l e d t o a d d r e s s t h e S e n t e n c i n g C o m m i s s i o n ’ s p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t

c o n c e r n i n g a n i n m a t e ’ s d a n g e r o u s n e s s a n d “ whether a reduction in his sentence would be

consistent with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ” D C E C F N o

. 1 9 3 a t 5

. T h i s

a p p e a l f o l l o w e d

. 2

I I

.

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. W e r e v i e w f o r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g T h o m a s ’ s m o t i o n f o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

.

Se e United States v. Pawlowski

, 967 F .3d 3 27, 330 (3d Cir. 2020)

. “ An abuse of

discretion exists when the decision rests ‘ on an erron eous view of t he law or on a clear ly

erroneous assessment of the evidence

. ’ ” Hope v. Warden York C n t y

. Prison , 972 F.3d

310, 320 (3d Cir. 2020) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.

I I I

.

S e c t i o n 3582 (c)(1)( A)(i) a u t h o r i z e s c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e b a s e d o n a n

“ extraordinary a nd compelling ” r eason

. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t T h o m a s ’ s

m o t i o n w a s n o t s u

p p o r t e d b y s u c h a r e a s o n

.

2 S e c t i o n 3582(c) is conside red par t of a litigan t ’s c r iminal proceedin gs

, s o the f ourteen

day appe al window set forth in Fed . R. App. P . 4 (b) (1)( A) applies

. See Unit ed States v.

Payton , 979 F .3d 388, 389

- 90 (6t h Cir. 2020) (per curiam order) ; cf. United States v. Chapple , 847 F.3d 227, 228 (5th Cir. 201 7)

. Thomas ’ s notice of a ppeal is d ated

September 25 , 202 0, see D C ECF No. 195

, an d he h as s worn under penalt y of perj ury

that that was the date of the document ’ s tr ansmission to the prison mailing system

, see

Doc. 5

. Thomas ’ s appeal of the Distric t C o urt ’ s September 15, 2020 or de r is timely

. See5

I n Raia

, w e o b se r v e d t h a t “ t he mere existence of COVID

- 19 i n society and the

possibility that it may spread to a part icular prison alone cannot independently j usti fy

compassion ate relea se, especially considering BOP ’ s statutory role, and its e xtensive and

professional efforts to curtail the virus ’ s spread

. ” 954 F. 3d a t 5 9 7

. I n o t h e r w o r d s

, a n

i n m a t e m u s t p o i n t t o s o met h i n g m o r e t h a n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f C O VID

- 1 9

. B e f o r e t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, h o we v e r

, T h o m a s i d e n t i f i e d n o r e a s o n w h y

, d e s p i t e t h e B O P ’ s e f f o r t s t o

c o n t r o l t h e v i r

u s

, h e i s m o r e v u l n e r a b l e t o i t t h a n o t h e r i n m a t e s

. C f

. Pawlowski , 967 F.3d

a t 330

. A d d i t i o n a l l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f i t s d e c i s i o n t h e r e w e r e n o

a c t i v e c a s e s o f C O V I D

- 1 9 a t Y a z o o C i t y L o w

. 3

F o r t h o se r e a s o ns

, w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e D i s t ri c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n

d e n y i n g r e l i e f

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t b e l o w

. S ee 3d Cir. L.A.R. 2 7.4

(2011); 3d Cir

. I.O.P. 10. 6 ( 2018)

. 4

Houston v. Lack

, 487 U. S. 266

, 276 ( 1988 )

.

3 A more recent review of the BOP ’ s w ebsit e rev eals seven active cases : two i nmates and

five staff. See https:// www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last v isit ed January 27, 20 21)

.

4 As not ed a bove, in a ddi tion to t he required de monstra ti on of a n “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d

c o m p e l l i n g ” reason for rele ase under § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) , an in mate seeking

compassionate release must merit a favo rab le assessment using the § 3553(a) factors and

the Sentencing Commi ssion’s applicable policy statements

. Se e Pawl owski , 967 F.3d a t

329 & n.6

. W hile the District Court ’ s determination under § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) is correct

and dispositive , we note that our affirmance should not be in te rpreted to suggest

agreement with the Di strict Court ’ s al ternative determination that Thomas fai led to

address any of the § 3553(a) factors. Cf. id. at 331 (indicating that the time remaining on

a prisoner ’ s senten ce is a r el evant consideration in de term in ing w hether the § 3553(a)

facto r s suppor t a grant of compass ionate release ).