Opinion ID: 6216786
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compassionate Release

Text: Counsel’s Anders brief correctly states that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying compassionate release. The district court followed the appropriate three-part analysis from McGee: It found that Gonzalez’s age and medical conditions 8 Appellate Case: 21-1163 Document: 010110643007 Date Filed: 02/09/2022 Page: 9 made him more susceptible to severe COVID-19 complications, but it was unwilling to find extraordinary and compelling circumstances because, in the court’s discretion, the risk of COVID-19 infection and complications exists both inside and outside the facility. ROA, Vol. I at 119–21. In reaching this determination, the district court relied upon the decline in positive cases at Gonzalez’s FCI Beaumont facility, the inability to prevent exposure in the community, and the fact that “the Bureau of Prisons has a constitutional obligation to provide [Gonzalez] with adequate care during his incarceration.” Id. at 120–21. If Gonzalez contracts COVID-19 while in prison, he is assured treatment from facility medical staff; but if Gonzalez was released, “it is not clear what degree of medical care he could obtain in the community.” Id. at 120. Although no extraordinary or compelling circumstances were found to support compassionate release, the district court still conducted another § 3553(a) analysis. The district court acknowledged Gonzalez’s age, medical conditions, and rehabilitation but also relied on the severity of the offense, lengthy criminal history, and service of less than 40% of his sentence. Id. at 121. The district court ultimately concluded that although the pandemic and Gonzalez’s medical conditions were unforeseen at sentencing, those factors when considered with all of the § 3553(a) factors were insufficient to justify a sentence reduction. Id. We again see no non-frivolous basis for challenging the district court’s exercise of its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s motion for compassionate release. 9 Appellate Case: 21-1163 Document: 010110643007 Date Filed: 02/09/2022 Page: 10