22

- 980

- cr United States v. Van Manen 

## 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 NO TATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING 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 

### 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in 

### 2 the City of New York, on the 2 0 t h day of J u n e , two thousand twenty

- three

. 

### 3 4 PRESENT: 

### 5 MICHAEL H. PARK, 

### 6 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 

### 7 ALISON J. NATHAN, 

### 8 Circuit Judges. 

### 9

_____________________________________ 

### 10 11 United States of Ame rica , 

### 12 13 Appellee , 

### 14 15

v. 22

- 980 

### 16 17 Paul Van Manen, 

### 18 19 Defendant

- Appellant

. * 

### 20

____________________________________ 

### 21 22 FOR APPELLEE: Catherine E. Ghosh, 

### 23 Hagan Scotten, Assistant 

### 24

* The Clerk is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly.

### 2 United States Attorneys, 

### 1 for Damian Williams, 

### 2 United States Attorney for 

### 3 the Southern District of 

### 4 New York, New York, NY. 

### 5 6 FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT: Paul Van Manen, pro se , 

### 7 Fort Dix , NJ. 

### 8 9
Appeal from a n order of the United States District Court for the Southern District 

### 10
of New York (Crotty, J

. ). 

### 11

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

### 12

AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED

. 

### 13
Appellant Paul Van Manen, proceeding pro se , app eals from the district court’s 

### 14

denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) in light of 

### 15

COVID

- 19 . The district court ruled that Van Manen had not established extraordinary 

### 16
and compelling reasons warranting release and tha t the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

### 17
weighed against a sentence reduction. See United States v. Van Manen , No. 18

- CR

- 30

- 3, 

### 18

2022 WL 842989, at *1

– 3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2022). Van Manen appealed. We assume the 

### 19
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on 

### 20
appeal. 

### 21
A district court may, in an exercise of its discretion, reduce a defendant’s term of 

### 22
imprisonment by granting a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion

— the “compassionate 

### 23

### 3 release” provision

— if ( 1) the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies; ( 2) the 

### 1

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors favor a sentence reduction; and ( 3) the defendant’s 

### 2
circumstances are extraordinary and compelling “such that, in light of the se § 3553(a) 

### 3
factors, a sentence reduction is justified

. . . and would not simply constitute second



### 4
guessing of the sentence previously imposed.” United States v. Keitt , 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d 

### 5
Cir. 2021). We review the denial of such a motion for abuse of discretion

. Id. 

### 6
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the § 3553(a) 

### 7
factors weighed against a sentence reduction. The district court considered the 

### 8

seriousness of Van Manen’s offense (narcotics conspiracy involving fentanyl resulting in 

### 9
injury and death) , his lengthy criminal history , the danger he posed to the community, 

### 10

and his lack of remorse

. Van Manen , 2022 WL 842989, at *3. The district court conclude d 

### 11
that reducing his sentence would not “reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote 

### 12
respect for the law, or afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct under § 3553(a).” 

### 13

Id

. (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also acknowledged Van Manen’ s 

### 14

substance

- ab use struggles and indicated that this mitigating factor was considered at 

### 15
sentencing, resulting in a below

- G uidelines sentence of 276 months ’ imprisonment

. Id. 

### 16
Finally, the district court emphasized that Van Manen had served less than a qua rter of 

### 17

his sentence , “ counsel [ ing ] against an early release.” Id. 

### 18

### 4 Van Manen contends that sentencing disparities with his co

- defendants weigh in 

### 1
favor of granting compassionate release , but we do not find his argument persuasive. 

### 2
Section 3553(a)(6) directs district courts to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted 

### 3
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty 

### 4

of similar conduct

. ” “ [T] he weight to be afforded any § 3553(a) factor is a matter firmly 

### 5
committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge and is beyond our review, as long as 

### 6
the sentence ultimately imposed is reasonable.” United States v. Verkhoglyad , 516 F.3d 122, 

### 7
131 (2d Cir. 2008) ( cleaned up ) ; see also United States v. Halvon , 26 F.4th 566, 571 (2d Cir. 

### 8
2022) (applying Verkhoglyad to compassionate release)

. The district court noted that Van 

### 9

Manen’s co

- defendants received a lower sentence because they accepted responsibility 

### 10

for their actions

. See Van Manen , 2022 WL 842 989, at *3 n.3

. Van Manen did not

. 

### 11

Moreover, i t was well within the district court’s discretion to place more weight on t he 

### 12

seriousness of the offense , the need for deterrence, and the promotion of respect for law. 

### 13

We have considered Van Manen’s remaining arguments and find them to be 

### 14
without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court. 

### 15

16 FOR THE COURT: 

### 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 

### 18 19