BLD-137 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 22-2726

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KENNETH DANIELS,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:15-cr-00127-001)

District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 4, 2023

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

(Opinion filed May 22, 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

Federal Prisoner Kenneth Daniels appeals pro se from the District Court’s denial 

of his motion for compassionate release. The Government has filed a motion for 

summary affirmance. For the following reasons, we will affirm.1 

In 2016, Daniels pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924I. Daniels, whose criminal history included three convictions 

for drug trafficking, an earlier firearms-related conviction, and an aggravated assault 

conviction, was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal to a term of 180 months of 

imprisonment. He is currently scheduled for release in February 2028. 

In July 2020, Daniels filed his first motion for compassionate release, which the 

District Court denied after determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors counseled 

against such release. Daniels renewed his request shortly thereafter, asking the District 

Court to reconsider its earlier denial. The District Court summarily denied the motion. 

In July 2022, Daniels again filed a motion seeking compassionate release,2citing 

multiple grounds in support, including but not limited to his ongoing medical and mental 

health challenges, the death by suicide of his stepson and its impact on his wife and her 

ability to care for his other stepchild, his need to care for his ailing mother, and his 

sincere efforts at rehabilitation. On August 24, 2022, the District Court denied the 

1 Although we have entertained the motion, we remind the Government that such a 

motion should typically be filed before the appellant’s opening brief is due. See 3d Cir. 

L.A.R. 27.4(b).

2 While the motion is styled as an untimely motion for reconsideration, we agree with the 

District Court that the motion was a renewed motion for compassionate release. 
3

motion, concluding that Daniels had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for compassionate release, and that, even if he had, compassionate release was 

not warranted based on a weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. Daniels appealed, and the 

Government seeks summary affirmance. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of 

discretion a district court’s order denying a motion for compassionate release, including a 

determination that the sentencing factors under § 3553(a) do not weigh in favor of 

granting compassionate release. United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 

2020). “[W]e will not disturb the District Court’s decision unless there is a definite 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 and citation omitted). We 

may take summary action if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. 

L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment “after considering 

the factors set forth in § 3553(a) . . . if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Those sentencing factors require the courts to consider, inter alia, the 

nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, 

the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the 

law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public from future 

crimes by the defendant, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See
4

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Compassionate release is discretionary, not mandatory; therefore, 

even if a defendant is eligible for it, a district court may deny compassionate release upon 

determining that a sentence reduction would be inconsistent with the § 3553(a) factors. 

See Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330; United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1102 (6th Cir. 

2020) (finding no abuse of discretion where “the district court found for the sake of 

argument that an extraordinary and compelling circumstance existed . . . but that the 

§ 3553(a) factors counseled against granting compassionate release”). 

In analyzing the § 3553(a) factors, the District Court considered Daniels’ offense 

of conviction, as well as his significant criminal history and the time left on his sentence, 

and concluded that “[t]o release him now would overlook the nature, circumstances and

seriousness of his offenses, his history and characteristics, and would not promote respect 

for the law or provide just punishment.” D.Ct. ECF No. 124 at 3 n.1. We cannot say that 

the District Court committed a clear error of judgment in its assessment of the § 3553(a) 

factors. While Daniels argues that the District Court failed to give sufficient weight to 

the positive § 3553(a) factors that he believes favor granting relief, such as his extensive 

efforts at rehabilitation (“thousands of hours of programming” and “the extraordinary 

amount of rehabilitative classes he has taken”), 3d Cir. ECF No. 11 at 6, that contention, 

without more, fails to demonstrate that the District Court abused its discretion. See 

generally Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330. 

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the 

District Court’s judgment. See 3

rd Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.