D L D

- 2 8 2 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITE D STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

_

No. 2 1

- 2 3 9 8

___________

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

v.

J A C K R U S S E L L B R I S T O L

, a / k

/ a b r i s j 4 4

, A p p e l l a n t

____________________________________

On Appea l from the United States District Cour t

for the E a s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Act ion No. 2

- 1 8

- c r

- 0 0 3 7 5

- 0 0 1 )

District Judge: Honorable G e r a l d J

. P a p p e r t

____ ________________________________

Submitted o n a M o t i o n f

o r Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 1 0.6

S e p t e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 2 1

Before: J O R D A

N

, K R A U S E a n d P H I P P S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 13, 2021 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O .P

. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2

Federal prisoner J a c k R

u s s e l l B r i s t o l appea ls from an order of the District Court

de nying his motion for a reduction of se ntence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

.

T he Government has m o v e d t o summar i l y affirm t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r

. W e will

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

. 1

In 2019, Bristol was convicted of federal sex ual offenses concerning minors . Th e

District C our t imposed a 360

- mont h sen tence

. Bristol appealed, but this Court granted

the G overnment ’ s mo tion to enforce the appellate

- w aiver provision included in Bristol ’ s

writte n plea ag reement. See C.A. No. 19

- 3144

.

B r i s t o l f i l e d t h e m o t i o n a t i s s u e h e r e i n M a r c h 2 0 2 1

, s e e k i n g c o m p a s s i o n a t e

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

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i ) b a s e d o n c o n d i t i o n s a t F C I

C u m b e r l a n d r e s u l t i n g f

r o m t h e C O V I D

- 1 9 p a n d e m i c

. See generally 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (providing tha t a sentence may be reduced if “extrao rdina ry and

compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”). A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s

r e s p o n s e

, 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

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t B r i s t o l h a d n o t p r e s e n t e d “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d

c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s ” f

o r h i s r e l e a s e

. B r i s t o l ’ s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s s h o w e d t h a t h e s u f f e r s

f r o m h y p e r l i p i d e m i a

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

C O V I D

- 1 9 r i s k f

a c t o r

. B r i s t o l a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h e w a s a l o n g

- t i m e u s e r o f c h e w i n g

1 A lthough we have entertained t h e Government’s motion, we re mind the Government

that such a motion should typically be filed before the appe llant’s opening brief is3

t o b a c c o

, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t B r i s t o l ’ s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s r e f l e c t e d t h a t h e h a d

n o r m a l l u n g f

u n c t i o n

, e v e n a f

t e r c o n t r a c t i n g a n d r e c o v e r i n g f r o m C O V I D

- 1 9 i n J a n u a r y

2 0 2 1

. 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 B r i s t o l ’ s h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s

, e v e n i n c o n j u n c t i o n

w i t h h i s a g e ( 6 4 )

, d i d n o t w a r r a n t h i s e a r l y r e l e a s e

.

T h e District C o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a reduction i n s e n t e n c e w a s n o t w a r r a n t e d

b e c a u s e B r i s t o l w o u l d p o s e a d a n g e r t o t h e community, a n d h e d i d n o t m e r i t r e l e a s e

u n d e r t h e a p p l i c a b l e f

a c t o r s s e t f

o r t h i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

. I d

. a t 1 1

- 1 2

. T h e C o u r t

e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e n a t

u r e o f B r i s t o l ’ s o f

f e n s e

, a n d t h e f a c t t h a t h e h a d s e r v e d o n l y t h i r t e e n

p e r c e n t o f h i s s e n t e n c e

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

. B r i s t o l t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t h e d e n i a l o f

h i s m o t i o n

.

We have jurisdiction u n d e r 28 U. S.C. § 1291

. We review a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s

d e c i s i o n t o d e n y a compassionate

- release m o t i o n f o r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. United States v.

A n d r e w s

, - - - F. 4 t h

- - - , 2 0 2 1 W L 3 8 5 2 6 1 7

, a t * 3 (3d Cir. A u g

. 3 0

, 202 1 )

. “[ W]e will not

disturb the c ourt’s de t e r m i n a t ion unless w e a r e l e f t w i t h ‘ a definite and firm conviction

that [ it ] committed a clear error of judgmen t in the conclusi on it reached ’ .” Id. (quot i n g

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. P a w l o w s k i

, 9 6 7 F

. 3 d 3 2 7

, 3 3 0 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 2 0 ) )

.

W e a g r e e w i t h t he Government that the Distri ct Cour t did not e r r i n d e t e r m i n i n g

t h a t B r i s t o l f

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

.

B r i s t o l d i d n o t establish t h a t h e h a s a n y h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s t h a t m a k e h i m p a r t i c u l a r l y

due. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4(b).4

v u l n e r a b l e t o a r i s k o f s e v e r e i l l n e s s f r o m C O V I D

- 1 9

. A n d h i s a g e

, w h i l e p u t t i n g h i m a t

a s l i g h t l y i n c r e a s e d r i s k

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

.

B u t even i f B r i s t o l h a d m a d e t h e threshold s h o w i n g t h a t “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d

c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s ” supported h i s r e l e a s e

, w e also a g r e e w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t t h a t t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t abuse its discretion in d etermining that compassionate release i n

t h i s c a s e w o u l d b e incons iste nt with the Section 3553(a) factors. S e e United States v.

Jones , 980 F. 3 d 1098, 1102 (6th Cir . 2020) (finding no abuse of dis cretion where “the

distri ct court found for the sake of argument that an extr aordinary and compelling

circumstance existed . . . but that the § 3553(a) factors coun sel ed against granting

compassionate r e lease”)

.

T h e C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t B r i s t o l f a i l e d t o

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

. I d

. a t 1 3 ; s ee 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a ) (2)( C) (including protection of the public as a sentencing factor ). A s t h e

G o v e r n m e n t n o t e d

, “ Br istol’s repeated depraved actions aimed at a particularly

vulnerable segment of the population, and his willingness to further those actions by

subjecting gir ls to in

- person abuse, show he has no regard for public safety and presents a

clear danger to the community. ” D i s t

. C t

. M e m

. , D k t

. # 8 7 a t 6

.

And the Dis trict Cou rt remarked that B r i s t o l h a d s e r v e d o n l y t h i r t e e n p e r c e n t o f

h i s s e n t e n c e at the time of his motion

. T h a t f a c t o r a l s o w e i g h s a g a i n s t B r i s t o l ’ s r e l e a s e

.

See Pawlowski

, 967 F.3d at 331 (“Bec ause a defendant’s sentence reflects the senten cing5

judge ’s view of t he § 3553(a) factors at the time of sentencing, the time remaining in that

sentence may

. . . inform whether [compassionate] release would be consist ent with those

f a ctors.”).

For these reasons, B r i s t o l ’ s challenge to the District Co urt’s orde r does not p resent

a substantial question. We therefore grant the Government’s motion, and we will

s ummarily affirm the District Court’s o rder. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d C ir

. I.O.P. 10.6.