A L D

- 0 9 8 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U NITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIR CUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 3 4 0 0

______ _____

UNI TED STATES OF A MERICA

v

.

DRUE WILLIAMS, III

, Appellant

______ ________

______________________

On Appeal fr om the United States District Court

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

(D.C

. C r i m i n a l No. 2

- 16

- cr

- 00185

- 007 )

D i s t r i c t J udge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee ’ s Mot ion for Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

F e b r u a r y 1 8

, 2 0 2 1

Before: M C K E E

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : April 22, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

_ __________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is no t an opinion of th e full C ourt and pursuant to I. O.P. 5. 7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2

Pro s e appellant D r

u e W i l l i a m s

, I I I

, appeals f r o m the District Cou rt’s order

denyin g h i s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)

. The

G overnment has filed a m otion for s ummary a f f i r m a n c e

. For the reasons discussed

below

, w e grant the Gov ernment’s motion and w i l l summarily affirm the Distric t Court’s

o r d e r

. See Th ird Circuit LAR 27.4 a n d I.O.P. 10.6

.

I

.

I n 2 0 1 6

, W i l l i a m s w a s c h a r g e d with conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in vio lation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

. H e

p l e a d e d g u i l t y to a lesser inc lude d offense

. 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 W i l l i a m s t o a

t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t o f 7 0 m o n t h s

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

7 0 t o 8 7 m o n t h s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. T he District Court ordered th e sentence to run

concurrently with the undischarg ed p ortion of Wil liams’ 60

- month se ntence of

imprisonment in a related f e d e r a l case i n the D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Virgin Islands

.

I n A u g u s t 2 0 2 0

, W i l l i a m s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e release

, a r g u i n g t h a t

h i s o b e s i t y a n d o t h e r h e a l t h c o n c e r n s r e n d e r e d h i m e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e t o C O V I D

- 1 9

w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d a t F C I E l k t o n

. S ee general ly 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) (providing

th at a senten ce may be reduced if “ extraor dinary and compelling re asons warrant such a

reduction ”). W i l l i a m s s o u g h t t o r e d u c e h i s 7 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e t o t i m e s e r v e d

. T h e

G o v e r n m e n t d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h a t W i l l i a m s ’ o b e s i t y c o u l d s e r v e as an extraordinary and

compelling reason for a sentence reduction in light of the ongoing COVID

- 19 pandemic

.3

B u t t h e G o v e r n m e n t o p p o s e d t h e m o t i o n

, a r g u i n g t h a t t h 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 ) couns eled a g a i n s t W i l l i a m s ’ r e l e a s e

.

A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e c o r d a n d t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s

, 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 n o t e d t h e r i s k t h a t C O V I D

- 1 9 p o s e s t o W i l l i a m s

, h i s g o o d

c o n d u c t w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d

, h i s f a m i l y s u p p o r t

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

. B u t

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 the relevant factors weighed against release

. A m o n g

o t h e r t h i n g s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h a t W i l l i a m s h a d m o r e t h a n t w o y e a r s

r e m a i n i n g i n h i s s e n t e n c e

, w a s i m p r i s o n e d f o r a s e r i o u s d r

u g t r a f f i c k i n g o f f e n s e

, a n d h a d

a l e n g t h y c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y

.

T h i s a p p e a l e n s u e d

. I n t h i s C o u r t

, t h e Government has m o v e d f o r s u m m a r y

a f f i r m a n c e

.

I I

.

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

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. S e e United States v. Pawlowski

,

967 F.3d 327, 3 2 9 n

. 4 (3d Cir. 2020)

. W e r e v i e w t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r f o r a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n

, a n d t h u s “ will not disturb the District Court ’ s decisio n unless there is a

definite and firm conviction that it comm itte d a cle ar err or o f judgment in the conclusion

it reached upon a weigh ing of the r elevant factors

. ” I d

. a t 330 ( a l t e r a t i o n

, q u o t a t i o n

m a r k s

, a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. We may sum marily affirm a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r i f the

appeal fails to present a subst anti al question. See M urray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246 , 247

(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam ); Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

.4 I I I

.

W e discern no erro r in the District Court’s analysis of th e r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s and w e

will affirm for e s s e n t i a l l y the reason s p r o v i d e d by the District Court

. S e e 1 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ § 3 1 4 2 ( g )

, 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ; Pawlowski , 967 F.3d a t 3 2 9

. T he D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s

d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y r e l i e f b a s e d

, i n p a r t

, o n the substantial time rema ining to be served on

Williams’ sentence

, t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f h i s o f f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n

, a n d h i s e x t e n s i v e

c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y

. S e e Pawlows ki , 967 F.3d a t 3 3 1

. W h i l e W i l l i a m s a r g u e d 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 p l a c e d m o r e w e i g h t o n the risk that COVID

- 19 poses to h i m

,

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

i t d i d

. S e e i d

. 1

A c c o r d i n g l y

, 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 o r d e r

.

1 To the extent that Williams ’ motion raised cha lle nge s to the computation of h is

se ntence

, the amount of time

- served credit to w hich he is entitled, and the location of his

confinement, the District Court properly declin ed to consider th ose aspect s of the motion.

We note, a s th e District Court has not ed for Williams

, that “ [a] chal lenge to the BOP ’ s

execution of a sentence is prop erly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

. ” Burkey v.

Marberry , 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009) . Further, w e note that Williams has filed a

§ 2241 petition in the United States D ist rict Court for the Northern District of Ohio

.