B L D

- 1 5 8 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUI T

___ ________

No. 2 2

- 1 3 3 2

___________

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

v.

L A W R E N C E R O O K S

, A p p e l l a n t

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United St ates District Cou rt

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

. C rim i n a l A c t i o n N o s

. 2 : 2 1

- c r

- 0 0 038

- 00 1 & 2:21

- c r

- 00043

- 001 )

District Judge: Honorable C h a d F

. K e n n e y

______________________ ______________

Submitted o n A p p e l l e e ’ s M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y A c t i o n

P u r s u a n t t o T h i r d C i r c u i t L A R 2 7

. 4 a n d I

. O

. P

. 1 0

. 6

M a y 2 6

, 2 0 2 2

Before: McKEE, G REENAWAY, JR. and PORTER

, Circu it Ju dges

(Opinion filed : July 27, 2022 )

__ _______

OPINIO N *

_________ PER CURIAM

F e d e r a l p r i s o n e r L a w r e n c e R o o k s a p p e a l s p r o s e f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n

d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f

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

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )

.

* This disposition is not a n opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent

.2

T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s m o v e d t o s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m

. F o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w

, w e 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 a n d w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

I

.

I n J u l y 2 0 2 1

, 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 R o o k s t o 9 2 m o n t h s i n p r i s o n a n d f o u r

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

- o f f e n s e s i n C a s e N o

.

2 : 2 1

- c r

- 0 0 0 3 8

- 0 0 1 a n d f

i r e a r m

- related o f

f e n s e s i n C a s e N o

. 2 : 2 1

- c r

- 0 0 0 4 3

- 0 0 1

. A b o u t

t h r e e m o n t h s l a t e r

, a f

t e r e x h a u s t i n g h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

, h e f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t a p r o s e m otion f

o r compa ssionate r e l e a s e

. I n t h a t m o t i o n

, w h i c h t h e G o v e r n m e n t

o p p o s e d

, R o o k s s o u g h t e a r l y r e l e a s e s o t h a t h e c o u l d s e r v e a s t h e s o l e c a r e g i v e r f o r h i s

t w o

- y e a r

- o l d s o n

, w h o w a s b o r n p r e m a t u r e l y a n d s u f

f e r s f r o m o n e o r m o r e m e d i c a l

c o n d i t i o n s

. R o o k s ’ s m o t i o n a l s o m e n t i o n e d

, i n p a s s i n g

, t h e C O V I D

- 1 9 p a n d e m i c

.

O n J a n u a r y 2 8

, 2 0 2 2

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d R o o k s ’ s m o t i o n

, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t

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

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t P o r s h a W i l l i a m s ( R o o k s ’ s e x

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

, a n d that “ [ i ] n t h e e v e n t t h a t

M s

. W i l l i a m s h a s a l r e a d y o r s ub s e q u e n t l y d o e s abando n r es p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t he c h i l d

, ” 1

“ R o o k s h a s s e v e r a l f

a m i l y m e m b e r s w h o h e h a s a ls o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i sh a r e u n a b l e t o

1 R ooks alleged that Williams was unemploye d, and that at some point in time, (1) she

was enrolled in a d rug

- treatment program and (2) t he Child Community U mbrel la

Agency determined that it was in the c hild ’ s best interes ts for Rooks to be awarded sole

custod y. Rook s further alleged that Williams “ left th e care of the [chi ld] to other

relatives. ” Compassion ate

- Release Mot. 7

.3

p r o v i d e c a r e f

o r t he c h i l d

. ” D i s t

. C t

. M e m

. e n t e r e d J a n

. 2 8

, 2 0 2 2

, a t 1 2 [ h e r e i n a f t e r D i s t

.

C t

. M e m

. ]

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d “ t h a t t h e t h r e a t o f C O V I D

- 1 9

, i n

c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h [ R o o k s ’ s ] o t h e r w i s e u n q u a l i f y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, d o n o t s o c o m p o u n d

h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e y a r e ‘ 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

. ’ ” I d

. a t 1 4

. 2

T h i s t i m e l y a p p e a l f

o l l o w e d

. 3

I I

.

A d istrict court may grant compassio na te release if it f in ds

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h a t

“ ex traordinary and compelling re as ons ” warrant a reduction

. S e e 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A); United St ates v. Pawlo wski , 967 F.3d 3 27, 32 9 (3d Cir. 2020). W e

r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f comp a ssionate r e l e a s e f o r a b use o f d i s c r e t i o n

. S e e

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

. A n d r e w s

, 1 2 F

. 4 t h 2 5 5

, 2 5 9 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 2 1 )

. U n d e r th i s s t a n d a r d

, “ w e

w i l l n o t d i s t

u r b t h e [ d i s t r i c t ] c o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n l e s s w e a r e l e f t w i t h a d e f

i n i t e a n d

f i r m c o n v i c t i o n t ha t [ i t ] c o m m i t t e d a c l e a r e r r o r o f j u d g m e n t i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n i t

r e a c h e d

. ” I d

. ( s e c o n d a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. W e m a y

summarily a f

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

q u e s t i o n

. S e e 3 d C i r

. I

. O

. P

. 1 0

. 6

.

2 The District Court noted that “ R ooks contracted COVID

- 19 in November of 2 020,

while in custo dy

. . . , but remained asymptoma tic an d quarantined without any further

complications. ” D i s t

. C t

. M e m

. 1 4

.

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

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

.4

I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e D i s t r i c t 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 d e n y i ng R o o k s ’ s

c o m p a s s ion a t e

- r el e ase m o t ion f o r f a i l u r e t o s h o w “ 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 a s e n t e n c e r e d

u c t i o n

. E v e n i f w e w e r e to a s s u m e fo r th e s a ke o f a r gu m en t t h at

W i l l i a m s i s u n a b l e t o c a r e f or h e r an d R o o k s ’ s c hi l d

, w e w o u l d f i n d n o e r r o r i n t he

D i s t ri c t C o ur t ’ s c o n c lu s i o n th at R o o k s ’ s m o t io n c a n n ot p r e va i l because h e h as f a i l e d t o

e s t a b l is h t h a t c e r t a i n f

a m i l y m e m b e r s

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

, h i s m o t h e r

, a n d s o m e

o f h i s s i b l i n g s

, a re u n a b l e t o s e r v e a s a c a r e g i v e r f o r t he c h i l d

. 4 W e a l s o f

i n d n o e r r o r i n

t he D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n “ t h a t t h e t h r e a t o f C O V I D

- 1 9

, i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h

[ R o o k s ’ s ] o t h e r w i s e u n q u a l i f y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s

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

t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e y a r e ‘ 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

. ’ ” D i s t

. C t

. M e m

. 1 4 ; s e e a l s o

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

. R a i a

, 9 5 4 F

. 3 d 5 9 4

, 5 9 7 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 2 0 ) ( e x p l a in in g th a t the “ m e re

e x i s t en c e of C O V I D

- 1 9 i n s o ci e ty ” is n ot enough t o w a r r a nt com p as s ion at e r el e as e )

.

B ecau se t h i s a p p e a l d o e s n o t present a s ub s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n

, w e 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 t o s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m

, a n d w e w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

. 5

4 While R o o k s ha s not filed a response to the Government ’ s motion for summary

affirmance, we note that he app ears to argue in his brief t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d

h a v e contac ted h i s f

a m i l y m e m b e r s to determine t h e i r a b i l i t y t o se rve as caregivers for his

c h i l d

. But t h i s a r g u m e n t i g n o r e s t h e f a c t t h a t i t was R o o k s ’ s b u r d e n t o show that he was

entitled to c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

. S e e , e.g.

, United States v. Barbee , 25 F.4 th 531, 532

(7th Cir. 20 22); United St ates v. Jon es , 17 F.4 th 371, 375 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

5 W e also grant t he Govern ment ’ s (1) req uest for leave to file its motion for summar y

affir mance a nd (2) request t o be excuse d from f i ling a brief

.