20

- 3717

- cr United States v. Brunstorff

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY O RDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 2 City of New York, on the 2 7 t h day of J a n u a r y , two thousand twenty

- two

. 3 4 PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, 5 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 6 EUNICE C. LEE , 7 Circuit Judges

. 8

------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 11 Appellee , 12 13

v. No. 20

- 3717

- cr 14 15 KOUWANII BRUNSTORFF, AKA LEGEND, 16 AKA KOUWANNI BORNSTORFF, AKA 17 KOUWANI BRUNSTORFF, AKA KAWWANI 18 BRUNSTORFF, 19 202 Defendant

- Appellant

. * 1

------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT : J EFFREY C. K ESTENBAND , The 3 Kestenband Law Firm LLC, 4 Glastonbury, CT 5 6 FOR APPELLEE : A NTHONY E. K APLAN , 7 Assistant United States 8 Attorney (Marc H. Silverman, 9 Assistant United States 10 Attorney, on the brief ) , for 11 Leonard C. Boyle , Acting 12 United States Attorney for the 13 District of Connecticut , New 14 Haven, CT 15 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of 16

Connecticut ( Michael P. Shea , Judge ). 17
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 18

AND DECREED that the order of the D istrict C ourt is AFFIRMED

. 19

Kouwanii Brunstorff appeals from a n October 16 , 2020 order of the District 20
Court ( Shea , J. ) denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 21
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In 20 12 the District Court sentenced Brunstorff to 18 0 22
months in prison for unlawfully possessing firearms as a convicted felon . On 23

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.3 July 2 , 2020, Brunstorff filed a pro se motion for compassionate release, arguing 1

that his sentence should be reduced because his medical conditions put him at a 2
higher risk of severe illness or death from COV ID

- 19 and because he was needed 3

at home to care for his nine

- year

- old daughter. He also noted that he was a non

4

violent offender and had served more than half of his sentence. The District 5
Court denied the motion. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 6
facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to 7
explain our decision to affirm. 8
Under the relevant compassionate release provi sion, 18 U.S.C. 9
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if 10
it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” 11
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Even if “extraordinary and compelling” 12

circumst ances exist, however, a district court may not reduce a defendant’s 13
sentence before considering “the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent 14
that they are applicable.” Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A) ; United States v. Jones , 17 F.4th 371, 15
374 (2d Cir. 2021 ) . “We typically review the denial of a motion for a 164 discretionary sentence reduction for abuse of discretion.” United States v. 1
Holloway , 956 F.3d 660, 664 (2d Cir. 2020). 2
In evaluating Brunstorff ’s motion, the District Court acknowledged that 3

his obe sity and history of smoking cigarettes increased his risk of severe illness 4

from COVID

- 19

. Despite Brunstorff’s heightened risk , however, the District 5

Court declined to reduce his sentence after considering the Section 3553(a) 6

factors

. Acknowledging that Brunstorff had not been convicted of a violent 7

crime since he was in his “teens and twenties , ” the District Court nevertheless 8
held that the Section 3553(a) factors weighed against release , citing B run storff ’s 9

substantial criminal histor y and the fact that “he made a shank out of plexiglass 10
and hid it in his cell . . . while in his early 40s and while serving the term of 11
imprisonment” he was asking the District Court to reduce

. United States v. 12

Brunstorff , No. 12

- CR

- 00004, 2020 WL 611096 1, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 16, 2020)

. 13
The District Court’s reasonable evaluation of the Section 3553(a) factors provided 14
an adequate independent basis for its decision. See Jones , 17 F.4th at 374

. 15
On appeal, Brunstorff contends that the District Court, in denying his 16

motion, failed to account sufficiently for the substantial amount of time he had 175 already spent in prison . Although district courts have granted compassionate 1

release in cases where defendants have completed smaller port ions of their 2

sentence s than Brunstorff ha s here , see , e.g. , United States v. Rivernider , No. 10

- 3

cr
- 222, 2020 WL 2393959, at *1 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020); United States v. Davies , 4
469 F. Supp. 3d 175, 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), the District Court here did not abuse its 5
discretion when it evaluated the Section 3553(a) factors and concluded that , for 6

Brunstorff, “further prison time [was] necessary to protect the public,” 7

Brunstorff , 2020 WL 6110961, at *3

. Brunstorff also argues that the District Court 8

should have accorded more weight to the “draconian effect” of his initial 9

sentence , which was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Def.’s Br. 10

at 14. But the District Court was clearly aware of B run storff’s 180

- month 11
sentence when it nevertheless concluded that the Section 3553(a) factors 12
counseled against release. 13
Finally , Brunstorff maintains that the District Court should have given 14
“greater consideration” to his efforts at self

- improvement in prison, his 15
commitment to caring for his daughter , and the fact that his violent offenses were 16

committed in his early twenties

. Id. at 20. We decline to second

- guess the 176 District Court’s weighing of the Section 3553(a) factors, which was firmly 1

committed to its discretion. See United States v. Capanelli , 479 F.3d 163, 165 (2d 2
Cir. 2007). While we commend Brunstorff for his efforts at self

- improvement 3

while incarcerated, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its 4

discretion when it determined that his recent disciplinary infraction, combined 5
with his lengthy criminal history, weighed against release

. 6

We ha ve considered Brunstorff ’s remaining arguments and conclude that 7
they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court 8

is AFFIRMED. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 11 12 13