# Un it edS ta te s Co ur t ofA ppea ls F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

_________

___ 

## No. 20-3054 September Term, 2020 1:71-cr-00994-RCL-1 1:72-cr-01328-RCL-4 Filed On: January 13, 2021 United States of America,

Appell ee
v. Eugene Jerome Cunni ngham,

Appell ant

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Consoli dated with 20-3055

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STAT ES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Pilla rd, Katsas, and Walker, Circuit Judges J U D G M E N T This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the memorandum of law and fact filed by appellee, and the response thereto and supplement to the response. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. Upon conside ration of the for egoing, and the motion for compassionate release, and the motion to supplement the appendix , it is ORDERED that the mot ion to supplement the appendix be granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged supplemental app endix . Itis FURTHE R ORDERED and ADJUD GED that the mot ion for compassionate release be denied and the district court’s August 14, 2020 order denying appel lant’s motion for compassionate release be affirmed. Appell ant requested compassionate release under the District of Columbia’s Coronavi rus Support Congressional Re view Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, D.C. Code § 24-403.04, which allows a court to

# Un it edS ta te s Co ur t ofA ppea ls F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

_________

___ 

## No. 20-3054 September Term, 2020 reduce a defendant’s sentence if “[t]he defendant is 60 years of age or older and has served at least 25 years in prison” and if t he court “determ ines the defendant is not a danger to the safety of

any other person or t he community, pursuant to the factors t o be considered in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g) and 3553(a) and eviden ce of the defendant’s rehabilitation while incarcerated.” The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying release based on the grave nature of appellant’s underlying offenses and his numerous discipli nary infractions while incarcerated. Cf. United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1009 (6th Cir. 2020) (no abuse of discretion in denying sentence reduction because district court considered “rehabilitation efforts” but defendant’s “conduct while in prison did not all run in the same direction”); United States v. Holroyd, 825 F. App’x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ( applying abuse of discretion standard to motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)); United States v. Smith, 896 F.3d 466, 470 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (applying abuse of discretion standard to motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on the Sentencing Commission’s subseq uent lowering of a sentencing range). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition wil l not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the m andate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for r ehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2