B L D

- 0 9 4 NOT PRECE DENTIAL

UNITED STATES COUR T OF APPEALS

FOR THE TH IRD CIRCUIT

___ ________

No

. 2 1

- 2 4 5 2

______ ___ __

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

v.

M A R C E L L A S H O F F M A N

, a / k / a M O E

, A p p e l l a n t

_______ _ __ __________________________

On Appeal from the Unite d Sta tes District Court

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 r i m i n a l Action No. 2

- 0 1

- c r

- 0 0 1 6 9

- 0 0 2 )

Distr i ct Judge: Honor able J o e l H

. S l o m s k y

_______________

_ ____ __ _ ____ ____ _____

Submitted f

o r P o s s i b l e D i s m i s s a l D u e t o a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l D e f e c t

a n d o n A p p e l l e e ’ s M o t i o n for Summary Action

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

M a r c h 3

, 2 0 2 2

Befo re: M C K E E

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. a n d P O R T E R

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 2 2 , 2022 )

_______ __

OPINIO N *

__ ______ _

PER CU R IAM

* This dis position is no t an op inion of the full C ou rt and purs u ant to I.O.P. 5.7 doe s not

constitute binding precedent.2

M a r c e l l a s H o f

f m a n

, a f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r

, appe als a n order of the District Court

d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n for c o m p a s s i o na t e r e l e a s e

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

o r

s u m m a r y a f

f i r m a n c e

. F o r t h e f

o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

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

a f f i r m

. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d C ir. I.O.P. 10.6

.

H o f f m a n

, w h o i s s e r v i n g a 4 5 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r d r u g a n d f

i r e a r m s c o n v i c t i o n s

,

s o ug h t c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) (1)( A)(i)

, a s a m e n d e d b y

t h e F i r s t S t e p A c t

, w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s c riminal d e f e n d a n t s t o s e e k r e d u c t i o n s o f t h e i r

s e n t e n c e s b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g “ 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 ” c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. 1 He a r g u e d

t h a t h e s u f

f e r s f r o m v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s

, i n cl u d i n g T y p e I I d i a b e t e s a n d o b e s i t y

, t h a t m a k e

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

- 1 9

. 2 H e a l s o m a i n t a i n e d t h a t

c o ns i d e r a t i o n o f t h e sentencing f ac t o r s o u t l i n e d i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) w e i g h e d i n f a v o r

o f r e l e a s e

, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n l i g h t o f h i s rehabilit a t i o n w h i l e i n p r i s o n

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o ur t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t H o f f m a n ’ s T y p e I I d i a b e t e s a n d o b e s i t y p u t h i m

a t i n c r e a s e d r i s k because o f C O V I D

- 1 9

. H o w e v e r

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

conditions w e r e a p p r o p r i a t e l y m a n a g e d a n d d i d n o t 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 w a r r a n t i n g c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l ea s e

. M o r e o v e r

, 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

H o f f m a n p o s e d a d a n g e r t o t h e c o m m u n i t y

, a nd t h a t t h e § 3 5 5 3 f a c t o r s w e i g h e d a g a i n s t

1 Hoffman exh aust e d his ad m i nist rat ive remedies

. See 18 U. S .C

. § 3582( c) (1 )( A)

.

2 Subseq ue nt to filing his motion, Hoffman contracted C OVID

- 19.3

h i s r e l e a s e

. I t t h e r e f

o re d e n i e d t h e § 3 5 8 2 m o t i o n

. H o f f m a n a p p e a l e d

, a n d t h e

G overnment s e e k s s u m m a r y a f f i r m a n c e

.

W e ha ve jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 12 91

. 3 W e review a district court’s

decision to den y a motion for c ompassionate release for abu se of discretion. See U nited

States v. P awlowski , 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020)

. “[W]e will not distur b t he

Distric t Court’s decision unless t here is a defin ite and firm conviction th at it co mmitted a

clear error of judgme n t in the conclusion it reach ed.” Id. (quotation mar ks and citation

o mitted).

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t t h a t the a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o s u b s t a n t i a l question

.

S e e 3 d Cir. L.A. R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10 .6. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t c l e a r l y e r r i n i t s

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

a v o r o f r e l e a s e

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t p r o p e r l y e m p h a s i z e d t h e s e r i o u s n a t u r e o f H o f f m a n ’ s o f f e n s e s

, h i s r e c i d i v i s t

n a t u r e

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

. I n p a r t i c u l a r

, i t n o t e d t h a t d u r i n g

3 A § 3582 motion is a continuation of the prior criminal proceeding, s ee United States v.

Arrango , 291 F.3d 170, 171

- 72 (3d C ir. 2002 ) , so, to be timely, a defendant’s n otice of

appeal must be filed in the district court no l ater than 14 days after the challenged order is

entered. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b)(1)(A)

. Hoffman ’ s notice of appeal was filed outside

this time per iod

. We re tai n ed jur i sdiction but remanded the ma tter for the District Court

to consider whether Hoffman had shown good cause for extending the time to appeal.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). However, the 14

- day period for filing a notice of appeal in a

cr iminal case is non

-

jurisdictional, see Gov’t of th e V.I. v. Martinez , 620 F.3d 321, 328

- 29 (3d Cir. 2010)

, and the Government has since indicated that it will not invoke Rule

4(b) but asks us to rule on the merits. See id. at 329 ; see also United States v

. Muha mmud , 70 1 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012)

. In light of this, we vacate the remand

order as moot and ex ercise jurisdiction over the appeal

.4

h i s m o s t r e c e n t o f

f e n s e s

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

, H o f f m a n s h o t

t w o i n d i v i d u a l s

. 4 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t H o f f m a n h a d s e r v e d r o u g h l y h a l f o f

h i s 4 5 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e

. See Pawlowski , 967 F.3d at 330 (con cluding t hat the amount of

time remaining to be served in an inmate’s sentence is an appropriate consideration under

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) )

. I t e m p h a s i z e d t h e n e e d f o r h i m t o s e r v e t h e f

u l l s e n t e n c e i n l i g h t o f

“ t h e m a g n i t u d e o f h i s c r i m e s a n d h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y

. ” E C F N o

. 3 6 0 a t 1 8

. T h e C o u r t

a l s o n o t e d t h a t i t h a d v a r i e d d o w n w a r d f r o m t h e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s i n i m p o s i n g the

s e n t e n c e

, a n d t h a t f

u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n r i s k e d u n w a r r a n t e d sentenc i n g d i s p a r i t i e s a m o n g

s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d d e f

e n d a n t s

. See U nited States v. Ruff in , 978 F.3d 1000, 1008 (6th Cir.

2020) (noting that sentence reduction was n ot warranted where, among other factors, “the

court had already varied dow nward by five years from Ruffin's guidel ines rang e when

imposing [a] lengthy sentence”). We find no abus e of discretion in its assessment of

these factors

, w h i c h a l o n e s u p p o r t e d i t s d e n i a l o f t h e § 3 5 8 2 m o t i o n

. See United States v.

Elias , 984 F.3d 516, 5 19 (6th Cir. 2 021)

.

B a s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g

, 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 f o r s u m m a r y

a f f i r m a n c e

, a n d w e w i l l summaril y affirm 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

.

4 In making its assessment, t he District Court pro perly relied o n information in the

Pre sentence Investigation Re port ( PSR) , no t w ithstanding Hoffman ’ s ob jections to it

.