A L D

- 1 6 8 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 1

- 1 2 7 2

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JERRY FRUIT,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal fr om the United State s District Court

for the M i d d l e District o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. C r i m i n a l Action No. 1

- 1 6

- 0 0 3 4 1

- 0 0 1 )

District Judge: Honorable J o h n E

. J o n e s I I I

____________________________________

Submitted o n a M o t i o n f o r Summary Action

Pursuant to Th ird Circuit LAR 27. 4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 29, 2021

Before: M C K E E

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J r

. , a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Judg es

(Opinion f iled : June 25, 2021 )

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

OPINION *

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_ PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant J e r r y F r u i t appeals from the District Court’s order denying his

motion for compassionat e release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)

, a n d t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g

* This dispo sition is not an opinion o f the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O .P . 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2 h i s m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. B e c a u s e t h e a p p e a l r a i s e s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n

, w e w i l l

g r a n t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a ry a f f

i r m a n c e

.

I n 2 0 1 8

, F r u i t p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o conspiracy to dis tribute and possess with intent to

distribute h e r o i n a n d c o c a i n e , in violation of 2 1 U. S.C. §846

, and possession with intent

to distribute h e r o i n a n d cocaine , in violati on of 21 U.S.C. §841

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

s e n t e n c e d F r u i t t o a m a n d a t o r y p r i s o n t e r m o f 1 2 0 m o n t h s f o r h i s d r u g c o n v i c t i o n s

,

i m p o s e d c o n s e c u t i v e t o a n o t h e r f e d e r a l s e n t e n c e

. W e a f f

i r m e d o n a p p e a l

. United States

v. Garner , 961 F.3d 264, 275 (3d Cir.)

, cer t. den ied sub nom. Fruit v. United States , 141

S. Ct. 687 (2020)

.

I n O c t o b e r 2 0 2 0

, F r u i t f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )

. H e s o u g h t r e l e a s e f r o m p r i s o n b e c a u s e o f a n a l l e g e d h i g h r i s k o f s e r i o u s

i l l n e s s f r o m C O V I D

- 1 9

, d u e t o h i s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s ( o b e s i t y

, h i g h c h o l e s t e r o l / c o r o n a ry

a r t e ry d i s e a s e

, a n d a n g i n a )

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n

, n o t i n g t h a t F r u i t ’ s

m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s w e r e b e i n g t r e a t e d a n d m a n a g e d a n d t h a t a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e o r d e r

,

r i s k o f i n f e c t i o n w a s m i n i m a l

, a s t h e r e w e r e “ z e r o a c t i v e i n m a t e c a s e s o f C O V I D

- 1 9 a t

t h e U S P

- L e w i s b u r g P r i s o n C a m p

, ” a n d “ f o u r a c t i v e s t a f f c a s e s

. ” O r d e r

, D k t

. # 2 1 2 a t 4

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t F r u i t h a d “ n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d ‘ e x t r a o r d i n a ry a n d

c o m p e l l i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s ’ w a r r a n t i n g c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

. ” I d

. T h e C o u r t a l s o

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a c t o r s o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) d i d n o t f a v o r r e l e a s e

, e i t h e r

, a s F r u i t

h a d “ a n o t a b l e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y ” a n d h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d “ a c o n s i d e r e d d i s r e s p e c t f o r t h e

l a w a n d a f a i l u r e t o l e a rn f r o m h i s p r i o r f e d e r a l c o n v i c [ ] t i o n a n d i n c a r c e r a t i o n

. ” I d

.3 F r u i t t i m e l y m o v e d f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. 1 D k t

. # 2 1 4

. F r u i t a s k e d t h e C o u r t t o

r e c o n s i d e r

, n o t i n g t h a t h e h a d g a i n e d n e a r l y t e n p o u n d s b e c a u s e o f h i s i n a b i l i t y t o

e x e r c i s e u n d e r C O V I D

- 1 9 r e s t r i c t i o n s

. F r u i t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e n u m b e r o f a c t i v e s t a f f

c a s e s h a d i n c r e a s e d t o s e v e n

. H e a r g u e d t h a t t h e p r i s o n ’ s r e p o r t o f “ z e r o a c t i v e i n m a t e

c a s e s ” w a s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a f a i l u r e t o t e s t i n m a t e s

. I d

. a t 3

. F r u i t a g r e e d t h a t h i s c r i m i n a l

r e c o r d s u g g e s t e d t h a t h e p o s e d s o m e l e v e l o f d a n g e r t o t h e c o m m u n i t y

, g i v e n h i s

r e c i d i v i s m

, b u t h e a r g u e d t h a t r e l e a s e w a s s t i l l w a rr a n t e d

, g i v e n h i s m e d i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y

.

I d

. a t 4

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. T h e C o u r t

a c kn o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e n u m b e r o f a c t i v e C O V I D

- 1 9 c a s e s a t U S P

- L e w i s b u r g C a m p h a d

i n c r e a s e d

, b u t a l s o n o t e d t h a t i n f e c t e d i n m a t e s 2 h a d b e e n i s o l a t e d

, a n d t h a t t h e p r i s o n

1 T h e District Court ’ s order den ying his moti on for compassionate release was entered on

November 24 , 2020 . When Fr uit appealed, it was not clear whether his motion for

rec onsideration had been timely filed, as it was docketed on December 10, 2020

. See

Unite d States v. Gome z

- Gomez , 643 F.3d 463, 471 (6th Cir. 2011)

. But when we

advised Fru it that we w ould consider wheth er hi s ap peal was untimely, he submitted a

dec laration under penalty of perjury that he had deposited his motion for rec onsideration

in the p ri son ’ s o ut going mailbo x on December 7, 2020 . His declaration satisfies the

requiremen ts of Fe d . R. App. P. 4(c)(1 )(A)(i) and Rul e 4(c)(1 )(B). Thus, we now

cons ider his motion for reconsideration to have been timely filed o n Decembe r 7, 2020

, 13 days aft er the District Court ’ s November 24 order. And his notice of appeal,

postmarked on February 9, 202 1, 13 da ys after the District Court ’ s order d enying hi s

motion for reconsideration , is also t imely

. See F ed. R. App . P. 4(b)(3)(A); Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c)( 1 )( A) (ii)

.

2 Altho ugh Fruit mentioned no inmate cases in his mot ion for reconsideration

, he then

s ent the Court a let ter informi ng it of an “ outbreak ” at Le wisburg Camp. T he

Government informed th e Court that “ as of December 3 0, 2020

, ” there were “ a total o f

45 active COVI D

- 19 cases involving inmates asso ciated with the camp

, ” but that all4 r e p o r t e d t h a t “ a l l o f t h e i n f e c t e d i n m a t e s w e r e d u e t o c l e a r i s o l a t i o n b y J a n u a ry 6

, 2 0 2 1

. ”

D k t

. # 2 2 3 a t 1

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d d e d t h a t “ n o t h i n g h a s a l t e r e d o u r p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g

t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t ’ s p r o n o u n c e d a n d r e c i d i v i s t c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t h e i s a

d a n g e r t o t h e c o m m u n i t y

. ” I d

. F r u i t a p p e a l e d

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t t h e n m o v e d f o r

s u m m a r y a f f

i r m a n c e

. F r u i t f i l e d h i s o p e n i n g b r i e f

, w h i c h w e w i l l c o n s i d e r a s a r e s p o n s e

i n o p p o s i t i o n t o s u m m a r y a c t i o n

.

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. 3 We r eview the District Court’ s

order for abuse of discretion : “ we will not disturb the District Court’s decision unless

there is a definite and firm convictio n that it committed a clear error of judgment in the

conclusion it reached upon a weighi ng of the rele vant factors.” United St at es v.

Pawlowski , 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020) (alteration, internal quotation, and citation

omitted). We will take summary action if t h e ap p e a l p r e s e n t s “no substantial question .”

3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 1 0.6.

We will grant the Government’s m ot ion. The compassionate

- release provision

states that a district court “may reduce the t erm of imprisonment” and “impose a term of

probation or supervised release” if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reas ons

warrant su ch a reduction.” 18 U.S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Before granting compassionate

would be cl eared from isolatio n by Januar y 6, 2021, “ barring the development of any

add itional signs or symptoms of COVID. ” Dkt. #221 at 2

- 3 (quoting status report from

t he prison) . The status report also said that “ all of the cases associated with the camp

have be en very mild, with the bu lk of them being asymptomatic. ” Id. at 3.

3 Fruit ’ s appeal is timely, as explained in n.1 supra

.5 release, a district court must consi der “the factors set forth in [ 18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the

extent that they are applicable.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). Those factors i nclude, among other

things, “the nature a nd circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of

the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1), and the need for the senten ce “to reflect the seriousness of

the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to p rovide just pu nishment for the

offense” ; “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”; and “to protect the public

from fur ther crimes of the de fendant,” § 3553(a) (2)(A)

– ( C).

E ven assuming that F r u i t ’ s medical conditions were sufficiently severe to w arrant

compass ionate release

, w e discern no abuse of discretion in the Distric t Court’s

conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors weighed strongly against granting s u c h r e l i e f

.

I n d e e d

, F r u i t a p p e a r s t o c o n c e d e t h a t h i s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d s u p p o r t s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e

r e m a i n s a d a n g e r t o t h e c o m m u n i t y

. F r u i t a r g u e s t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e i s u n d u l y h a r s h

, b u t

h i s s e n t e n c e w a s s t a t u t o r i l y m a n d a t e d

. 4 We theref ore do not have “a defini te and firm

conviction that [the District Court] committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusio n

it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” P a w l o w s k i

, 9 6 7 F

. 3 d a t 3 3 0

(alterat ion omitted) (quoting Oddi v. Ford Motor Co.

, 234 F.3d 1 36, 14 6 (3d Cir. 2000) ).

For these reasons, we grant the Government’s motion and will summar ily affirm

the District Court’s judgment.

4 Fruit has served about half of hi s s entence

— the Di strict Court notes that his projected

release date is in May of 2026. Order, Dk t. #212 at 4.