UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JEREMY J. SNYDER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-3089 

(D.C. No. 6:20-CR-10005-EFM-4) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Jeremy J. Snyder, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of 

his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release. The 

government elected not to file a response brief. Exercising jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

In September 2020, Mr. Snyder pleaded guilty to the use of a communication 

facility to facilitate the commission of a drug crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 24, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 1
2 

§ 843(b), and to possession of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). 

In April 2021 he was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Snyder is currently 

incarcerated at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution (FCI La Tuna). His 

projected release date is May 1, 2024, but he is eligible for home detention on 

November 2, 2023. 

In March 2022, Mr. Snyder filed a motion for compassionate release, asserting 

that many courts had granted compassionate release because of the threat of 

COVID-19. He alleged that the vaccines lose their effectiveness after four to six 

months, with record numbers of COVID-19 infections resulting in record numbers of 

COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. And he argued that the “extraordinary and 

compelling number of COVID cases in prison[,]” his “health issues of obesity and a 

history of smoking[,]” and “the impossibility to social distance as recommended by 

the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),] warrant[ed] a sentence 

reduction.” R., vol. I at 113. 

In May 2022 the district court denied the motion. Although the district court 

recognized that the CDC has found that Mr. Snyder’s medical condition of obesity 

may increase his risk of severe illness from COVID-19, the court concluded he did 

not show a high risk. The court based this risk assessment on the following evidence: 

(1) there was no widespread COVID-19 outbreak at FCI La Tuna at the time of its 

decision (no active inmate cases and only three active staff cases) and the prison has 

Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 2
3 

taken steps to control outbreaks; (2) Mr. Snyder has been fully vaccinated;1

 and 

(3) he has already contracted COVID-19 with no serious medical complications. The 

court therefore determined that Mr. Snyder had not met his burden to demonstrate 

“an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting a sentence reduction.” Id.

at 258. 

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for 

compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Hemmelgarn, 

15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it 

relies on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Under § 3582(c)(1)(A) a district court engages in a three-step process to 

determine whether to grant a motion for compassionate release. The court considers 

whether (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction”; 

(2) the “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission” (though there is no applicable policy statement at this 

time); and (3) the relevant sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warrant a 

reduction. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 937-38, 938 n.4 (10th Cir. 2021) 

(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2742 (2022). A district 

1

 As the government noted in its response brief in district court, prison records 

show that Mr. Snyder initially refused a COVID-19 vaccine on October 5, 2021, and 

tested positive for COVID-19 about a month later. Mr. Snyder then agreed to be 

vaccinated on January 7, 2022. 

Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 3
4 

court may properly deny a compassionate-release motion if any of these three 

prerequisites is lacking and need not address the other two. See id. at 942-43. 

On appeal Mr. Snyder raises the following issues: (1) the district court erred in 

finding there is no widespread COVID outbreak at FCI La Tuna; (2) “vaccinations do 

not stop more contagious variants,” Aplt. Br. at 3; (3) “[he] does have 

extraordinary/compelling reasons,” id. at 4; (4) “previous COVID infection does not 

eliminate risk,” id.; (5) “fully vaccinated inmates [are] still at risk,” id. at 5; and 

(6) the district court ignored case law in support of a sentence reduction and cited to 

case law that came out before omicron and other variants. We construe Mr. Snyder’s 

pro se brief liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny 

Mr. Snyder’s motion for compassionate release. The court gave a reasoned basis for 

its decision and did not rely on any erroneous factual findings or incorrect 

conclusions of law. First, the district court’s factual finding that there was no 

widespread COVID outbreak at FCI La Tuna at the time of its decision is not clearly 

erroneous. Mr. Snyder has offered no evidence that this finding was untrue when the 

district court entered its order on May 4, 2022, which is the relevant timeframe, see 

Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032. 

Next, although Mr. Snyder contends that vaccinations do not stop more 

contagious variants and fully vaccinated inmates are still at risk, the district court did 

not err in finding that Mr. Snyder’s being fully vaccinated decreases his risk for 

Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 4
5 

severe illness from COVID-19 and therefore “changes the calculus on the 

extraordinary and compelling reasons inquiry,” R., vol. I at 258 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). According to the CDC, vaccination does lessen the potential for 

severe illness from COVID-19.2

As for Mr. Snyder’s argument that a previous COVID-19 infection does not 

eliminate the risk of reinfection, the district court found that Mr. Snyder had no 

serious medical complications when he contracted COVID-19 in November 2021. 

Mr. Snyder does not challenge that finding. The district court therefore did not abuse 

its discretion in considering his prior infection when determining that he was not at 

high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 even with his underlying medical 

conditions. See Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032 (“[T]he district court’s statement that 

[the inmate] recovered from COVID-19 despite his medical conditions is simply 

consistent with the view that those conditions do not place him at high risk of severe 

illness from COVID-19.”). 

Mr. Snyder also complains the district court ignored case law that supported a 

sentence reduction, but the district court did not ignore or fail to comply with any 

binding precedent in denying his motion. In any event, in considering compassionate 

release because of COVID-19, the relevant considerations may differ from prisoner 

2

 “COVID-19 vaccination significantly lowers your risk of severe illness, 

hospitalization, and death if you get infected.” CDC, Frequently Asked Questions 

About COVID-19 Vaccination, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/vaccines/faq.html (last updated Dec. 22, 2022). 

Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 5
6 

to prisoner, from institution to institution, and from one month to the next, thereby 

greatly reducing the persuasive effect of any particular nonprecedential decision. 

Only one argument from Mr. Snyder merits further mention. When discussing 

Mr. Snyder’s risks from COVID-19, the district court specifically noted the increase 

in risk of severe illness because of his obesity, citing a CDC report. Mr. Snyder 

suggests that the court did not also consider his history of tobacco and drug use. We 

are not persuaded. In the preceding paragraph the court had explicitly referenced 

Mr. Snyder’s history of tobacco and drug use. The natural inference is that the court 

discounted the risk from those conditions for the same reasons it discounted the risk 

arising from his obesity—the vaccinations received by Mr. Snyder significantly 

decreased his risk of severe disease or death and his prior infection did not result in 

any severe medical complications. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining 

that Mr. Snyder failed to demonstrate an extraordinary and compelling circumstance 

warranting a sentence reduction. The district court provided a reasoned basis for 

denying Mr. Snyder’s motion and did not rely on any incorrect conclusions of law or 

erroneous factual findings. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 6