20-2008

United States of America v. Tony Leung

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 

NOTATION “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, held at the 

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 

26th day of May, two thousand twenty one.

Present: GUIDO CALABRESI,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

 Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. 20-2008-cr

TONY LEUNG, 

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

Appearing for Appellant: Michelle A. Gelernt, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Edward S. 

Zas, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on the brief), Federal 

Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, N.Y. 

Appearing for Appellee: Drew G. Rolle, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. 

Navickas, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Mark 

J. Lesko, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of 

New York, Brooklyn, N.Y.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

(Glasser, J.).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is VACATED and the 

case is REMANDED. 

Tony Leung appeals from a June 16, 2020 order denying his motion for a modification of 

his term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Defendants may seek discretionary modifications of their terms of imprisonment for 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons,” colloquially known as motions for compassionate 

release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Sentencing Guidelines prescribe specific grounds for 

granting such motions. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, n.1(A). Previously, defendants were required to 

move for such relief before the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), which, in its discretion, would then 

present select applications to a district court. The district court made its decision before we 

issued United States v. Brooker, which held that the First Step Act not only changed this 

procedure by permitting defendants to independently bring compassionate release motions before 

a district court after exhausting administrative remedies, but also “freed district courts to exercise 

their discretion in determining what are extraordinary circumstances” when defendants bring 

such motions. 976 F.3d 228, 234 (2d Cir. 2020). Under these circumstances, we deem it

appropriate to vacate and remand so that the distinguished district court can review the case in 

light of Brooker’s authority. At that time, the court will be free to consider any other facts which 

have arisen since his prior holding. 

Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is VACATED, and the case is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk