Opinion ID: 5232840
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: COVID-19 Issue

Text: Mr. Warren also argues the district court’s refusal to consider his argument that the COVID-19 pandemic weighed in favor of a sentence reduction was an abuse of discretion. The district court did not address Mr. Warren’s COVID-19 argument because of its view that Mr. Warren “could have, but chose not to, raise this argument in his original motion.” ROA Vol. 1 at 392. Mr. Warren argues this was error. 20 Appellate Case: 20-1436 Document: 010110628155 Date Filed: 01/06/2022 Page: 21 The district court’s reasoning is incorrect. Mr. Warren could not have raised his COVID-19 argument in his original motion. Mr. Warren filed his original motion for a reduced sentence on July 31, 2019, months before the discovery of COVID-19 internationally, much less domestically. But under the facts here, we conclude any error of the district court on this argument was harmless. Mr. Warren packages his COVID-19 argument as a challenge to the district court’s weighing of the § 3553 sentencing factors. But at the time the court performed that analysis, there was no COVID-19 threat to Mr. Warren. And nothing about its subsequent presence suggests the district court erred when it weighed the sentencing factors as part of its decision to deny Mr. Warren’s motion for a reduction in sentence. While Mr. Warren points to the risk of COVID-19 generally, he identifies nothing specific to his own circumstances. Mr. Warren does not argue he has any particular vulnerability which might make him more susceptible to serious harm from the pandemic.7 And the mere fact that COVID-19 exists in society is not enough, without any additional context, to show that Mr. Warren would likely have received a reduced 7 In addition, as of October 14, 2021, Mr. Warren’s facility at the time of appeal, USP-Lee in Pennington Gap, Virginia, see ROA Vol. 1 at 382–83, had zero cases of COVID-19 and zero inmate deaths from COVID-19. See FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, COVID-19 Coronavirus, “COVID-19 cases,” www.bop.gov/coronavirus/index.jsp (last visited October 14, 2021). It appears Mr. Warren has been relocated to FCI El Reno during the time of this appeal, see Johnny Scott Warren, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Inmate Locator, www.bop.gov/inmateloc/index.jsp (last visited December 10, 2021). As of December 10, 2021, FCI El Reno has zero current inmate cases and had only one inmate death as a result of COVID-19 since the pandemic began. See FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, COVID-19 Coronavirus, “COVID-19 cases,” www.bop.gov/coronavirus/index.jsp (last visited December 10, 2021). 21 Appellate Case: 20-1436 Document: 010110628155 Date Filed: 01/06/2022 Page: 22 sentence if the district court had considered his argument. Cf. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031–32 (10th Cir. 2021) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for compassionate release where defendant’s medical condition did not put him at risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the facility where defendant was incarcerated); United States v. Purify, No. 20-5075, 2021 WL 5758294, at  (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release because the defendant failed to state “how he is more susceptible or vulnerable to COVID-19 than the average prisoner”) (citing United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate release.”)). If this were the case, all prisoners would be entitled to reduced sentences by virtue of the spread of COVID-19. Thus, although the district court exceeded its discretion by concluding Mr. Warren could have bought his COVID-19 argument in his initial motion, any error was harmless. Harmless error in this context “is that which did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed.” United States v. Montgomery, 439 F.3d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Powell, 842 F. App’x 281, 285 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (applying this precedent in the context of the First Step Act). In reviewing Mr. Warren’s motion, the district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors and undertook an in-depth analysis of the appropriateness of Mr. Warren’s sentence. The fact that COVID-19 exists generally in the United States, in 22 Appellate Case: 20-1436 Document: 010110628155 Date Filed: 01/06/2022 Page: 23 absence of particular risk to Mr. Warren, would not have affected “the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Montgomery, 439 F.3d at 1263 (quotation marks omitted). We therefore hold the district court’s refusal to consider Mr. Warren’s COVID-19 argument was an abuse of discretion but ultimately harmless. 8