21

- 2074

- cr (Con) United States v. Cooper 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 Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 2 City of New York, on the 1 2 t h day of D e c e m b e r , two thousand twenty

- two

. 3 4 PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 5 DENNY CHIN, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. , 7 Circuit Judges

. 8

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

v. No s

. 21

- 1429

- cr (L) † 14 21

- 1784

- cr (CON) 15 21

- 2074

- cr (CON) 16 

### TYQUAN GRIEM, AKA TY GOON, PETER 17 

### VASQUEZ , JAQUAN COOPER AKA J

- GUNNA , 18 19 Defendant

- Appell ant

. ∗ 20

------------------------------------------------------------------ 21

† 21

- 1429 was previously closed by order dated December 10, 2021 ; 21

- 1784 was previously closed by order dated October 12, 2021.

∗ The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.2 FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT : G ARY L. C UTLER , Gary L. 1 Cutler, P. C

. , New York , NY 2 3 FOR APPELLEE : E RIC S ILVERBERG , Assistant 4 United States Attorney ( David 5 C. James, Assistant United 6 States Attorney, on the brief ), for 7 Breon Peace, United States 8 Attorney , Eastern District of 9 New York, Brooklyn, NY 10 Appeal from a n order of the United States District Court for the Eastern 11

District of New York ( Raymond J. Dearie , J udge ). 12

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 13

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

. 14
Jaquan Cooper appeals from an August 11, 2021 order of the United States 15
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dearie, J. ) denying his pro se 16

motio n for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On July 17

24, 2020, the Distr ict Court sentenced Cooper principally to 84 months’ 18
imprisonment for brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a drug

19
trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In February 2021 20
Cooper moved for a reduction in sentence, which the District Court denied. In 21
July 2021 h e moved again for a reduction in sentence, which the District Court 22

also denied. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 233 the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessa ry to explain 1

our decision to affirm. 2

We review the denial of a motion for a reduction in sentence for abuse of 3

discretion. See United States v. Holloway , 956 F.3d 660, 664 (2d Cir

. 2020). To 4
reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district 5
court must find that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 6

reduction.” United States v. Halvon , 26 F.4th 566, 568 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting 18 7
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Even if such reasons exist, a district court “must also 8

consider ‘the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 9
applicable’ before it can reduce the defendant’s sentence.” United States v. 10

Jones , 17 F.4th 371, 3 74 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). A 11
district court’s “reasonable evaluation” of the § 3553(a) factors thus serves as an 12
“alternative and independent basis for denial of compassionate release.” Id. 13
(quotation marks omitted). A distri ct court has broad discretion in considering 14

a motion for a sentence reduction and will be found to have abused that 15

discretion only if it “(1) based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, (2) 16
made a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or (3 ) rendered a decision 174 that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States 1

v. Keitt , 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). 2
On appeal, Cooper first argues that the District Court failed to consider the 3
“extraordinarily harsh conditions ” at the Metropolitan Detention Center ( the 4

“ MDC ”) during the COVID

- 19 pandemic. That argument is belied by the 5

record. In denying Cooper’s motion, t he District Court explai ned that it was 6
“well aware of the difficult conditions at the MDC over the past couple of years 7
and considered this reality in reaching an appropriate sentence for Mr. Cooper” 8
just a year earlier. App’x 43 ; see also App’x 185 (denying Cooper’s first moti on 9
for compassionate release in part because although his “asthma may heighten the 10
risk of complications from COVID

- 19, he tested positive for the virus in early 11
December [2020] and has since recovered” (citations omitted))

. Although 12
Cooper argues that t h e District Court did not explicitly state that it considered 13

the conditions of confinement at the MDC in determining his sentence , there is a 14
“strong presumption that the sentencing judge has considered all arguments 15
properly presented to her , unless the record clearly suggests otherwise

. ” 16
United States v. Cossey , 632 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted)

. 175 Here, the record does not suggest that the District Court failed to consider the 1

conditions at the MDC. 2

Next, Cooper argues that the District Court did not place enough weight 3
on his positive personal characteristics , such as his “non

- violent nature, ” his 4

“industriousness and ambition,” and his “remorse for his criminal a ctions

. ” 5
Appellant’s Br

. at 18

. But “ [m]ere disagreement with how the district court 6
balanced the § 3553(a) factors

. . . is not a sufficient ground for finding an abuse 7

of discretion. ” Halvon , 26 F.4th at 569 (quotation marks omitted)

. Here, t he 8

District Court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded , after “an 9
examination of the statutory sentencing factors and the Sentencing Commission 10
policy statements,” that Cooper’s “history of violent criminal conduct[] compels 11

his continued incarcerat ion.” App’x 43 ; see also Halvon , 26 F. 4th at 571. 12

We have considered Cooper’s remaining arguments and conclude that 13
they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the challenged order of the 14

District Court is AFFIRMED. 15

FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 17