UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TODD BELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00219-RDB-3)

Submitted: May 30, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Todd Bell appeals from the district court’s order and amended judgment granting 

his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and reducing his 

sentence to 332 months’ imprisonment. Bell sought a reduction to time served, asserting 

that the elimination of the “stacking” of sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) pursuant to the 

First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”), was an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. We affirm.

Courts may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and we review a district court’s 

ruling on the motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 

(4th Cir. 2021). “[D]istrict courts are empowered to consider any extraordinary and 

compelling reason for release that a defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981 

F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). But a reduction may not 

be granted without first considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the extent 

applicable. Kibble, 992 F.3d at 331. District courts have “broad discretion” in analyzing 

the relevant sentencing factors. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834 (4th Cir. 2022) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). And “it weighs against an abuse of discretion—and is 

viewed as significant—when the same judge [as in this case] who sentenced the defendant 

rules on the compassionate release motion.” Id. “[T]here’s a strong indication that the 

judge knows of the defendant’s circumstances, both favorable and unfavorable, and 

considers the totality of the record when assessing whether a different sentence is now 

warranted.” Id.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

In McCoy, we held that the district court may treat “the severity of the defendants’

§ 924(c) sentences and the extent of the disparity between the defendants’ sentences and 

those provided for under the First Step Act” as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for 

compassionate release. McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286. We acknowledged that Congress did not 

make the changes to the stacking rules retroactively applicable and thus does not “mandate 

more lenient sentences across the board but instead gives new discretion to the courts to 

consider leniency.” Id. at 288. We must determine whether the court set forth enough to 

show “that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising 

its own legal decisionmaking authority[.]” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th 

Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that 

the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a reduction greater than the one granted by the court. 

The district judge who considered Bell’s motion was the same judge who originally 

sentenced him, a factor that is significant in determining whether the court properly 

exercised its discretion. Id. at 189. The court also explicitly considered Bell’s 

rehabilitative efforts and the sentences received by his codefendants, but concluded that 

those factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the convictions, Bell’s criminal history, 

and the risk of recidivism.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and amended judgment and deny 

Bell’s motion for relief from judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 4 of 4