BLD-152 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 22-3402

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ROBERT EARL MARTIN,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2:98-cr-00178-001)

District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 1, 2023

Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 17, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Robert Martin appeals from an order denying his third motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). The Government has filed a motion 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

for summary affirmance of the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4(a). We 

grant the Government’s motion. 

In 2001, the District Court imposed a sentence of life in prison after a jury found 

Martin guilty of armed bank robbery and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of 

violence. Martin was sentenced pursuant to the three strikes law for having been 

convicted of at least three “serious violent felon[ies],” 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), including 

past convictions for armed bank robbery and second-degree murder. We affirmed his 

judgment of conviction and sentence. United States v. Martin, 46 Fed. App’x 119, 123 

(3d Cir. 2002). 

Martin filed motions for compassionate release in 2020 and 2021. Among the 

grounds raised, he argued for release because of his rehabilitative efforts and because he 

feared severe illness or death from COVID-19 in light of his age and health conditions. 

The District Court denied those motions for reasons it outlined in detailed memoranda. 

See ECF Nos. 172, 188. In particular, with respect to the second motion, the District 

Court reviewed Martin’s health considerations, noted he had been vaccinated, and 

decided that he had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons. ECF No. 

188 at 8. The Court further explained that the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in Martin’s 

favor when his violent criminal history, disregard for the safety of others, and failure to 

avoid criminal conduct after being incarcerated in the past continued to indicate that he 

remained a risk to community safety. Id. at 9. Martin appealed the denial of the second 

motion, and we summarily affirmed. See C.A. No. 21-2853.
3

In November 2022, Martin filed his third motion for compassionate release. He 

once again highlighted his deteriorating health due to age and serious diagnoses, and he 

added more grounds he wanted the District Court to consider as constituting 

“extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release.1 The Government opposed the 

motion. The District Court denied it in an order entered on November 29, 2022. See

ECF No. 202. He filed a timely notice of appeal. The Government has now moved for 

summary action, which Martin opposes. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District 

Court’s order for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 

330 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that we will not vacate a district court’s decision “unless 

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

conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors” (cleaned up)). A district 

court may reduce a movant’s incarceration if “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction,” but the court must consider the applicable sentencing factors 

under § 3553(a) before relief may be granted. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

The District Court explained in its November 2022 order: 

We are again not persuaded Mr. Martin’s history of violence, 

recidivism, and narcotic abuse do not pose a danger to society. 

We commend Mr. Martin on his rehabilitation efforts and 

appreciate the letters of support. But we find the § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors weigh against release at this stage. 

1 Because we ultimately find no abuse of discretion concerning the District Court’s 

weighing of § 3553(a) factors and resulting denial of his motion, it is unnecessary for us 

to address the “extraordinary and compelling” arguments. 
4

D. Ct. Order (ECF No. 202) at 2 n.1.2 We must concur with the District Court’s decision 

that Martin’s history continues to indicate that he presents a danger to the community, 

and that the balance of factors under § 3553(a) weighs against release right now. His 

extensive criminal history includes at least two occasions of recidivism to violent crimes 

after being released from prison for serious, violent offenses, including murder and armed 

robbery. On appeal, he maintains that he is not the person he was, and that the District 

Court’s evaluation of his record and characteristics are “frozen in time.” Appellant’s Br. 

(3d Cir. Dkt. No. 11) at electronic p. 20. But the District Court made its decision after 

carefully considering—as it has with Martin’s motions preceding this one— Martin’s 

remorse and rehabilitation work while in prison. He argues that his rehabilitation and 

behavior during incarceration “should weigh in favor of reducing his sentence,” id. at 21, 

but the fact remains that there are still other § 3553(a) sentencing factors that continue to 

outweigh them. While we commend his efforts, we cannot say that the District Court 

made a grave error of judgment by deciding against his release at this time. Pawlowski, 

967 F.3d at 330. 

For these reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order denying 

Martin’s motion for compassionate release. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.3

2

In prior decisions, the District Court walked through the § 3553(a) sentencing criteria in 

additional detail, see ECF Nos. 172 at 13-15, 188 at 8-9, and analyzed Martin’s danger to 

the community in particular, see ECF No. 172 at 8-13. 

3 We grant the Government’s request to be relieved of filing a brief. Martin’s motion to 

file his summary action response out of time is granted.