Opinion ID: 6327563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

Text: Barrio first argues that the district court overlooked two of his arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling reasons: (1) “considering elderly offender that has completed ‘the lion’s share’ of the life sentence imposed in 2000”5 and (2) “relief from non-felony California predicate drug offense (1980) that enhanced his then 20-tolife dual object single count drug offense (cocaine powder—cocaine base single count) to mandatory minimum of life pursuant to 21 USC [§] 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 851(a).” Aplt. 5 We note here that Barrio makes no claim that he is suffering from a serious physical or medical condition. He states he is healthy for his age and works full time at his prison job. ROA, Vol. 1 at 208. 9 Appellate Case: 21-6103 Document: 010110663352 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 10 Br. at 3, 10–11. In his motion for compassionate release, Barrio argued based on McGee that “nothing in . . . the First Step Act indicates that Congress intended to prohibit district courts, on an individual case-by-case basis from granting sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).” ROA, Vol. 1 at 206. He claimed that his “case characteristics resemble[] those in . . . McGee . . . based in § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) mandatory life mandate and peculiar similarities of offense characters[,] including approximate time served and combined post sentencing rehabilitation efforts.” Id. He then asked for relief based on “an otherwise unusually long sentence per today’s standard [Post-First Step Act-2018].” Id. at 207. As to Barrio’s claim about serving “the lion’s share” of his sentence, the district court considered this claim and found that it was neither extraordinary nor compelling in his circumstances. The district court discussed Barrio’s arguments on this point as suggesting that “his . . . time served . . . justif[ied] release.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 265. The district court determined that “the imposition of a sentence that was not only permissible but statutorily required at the time [it was imposed] is neither an extraordinary nor a compelling reason to now reduce the same sentence.” Id. at 265–66 (quoting United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 838 (10th Cir. 2021) (Tymkovich, C.J., concurring)). The district court recognized, consistent with McGee, that the change in the law could constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason if paired with “multiple inadequate circumstances.” Id. at 266 (citing McGee, 992 F.3d at 1048). But the district court ultimately concluded that Barrio did not present the unique circumstances, taken together, 10 Appellate Case: 21-6103 Document: 010110663352 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 11 to show an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. Id.; see also Maumau, 993 F.3d at 838 (Tymkovich, C.J., concurring) (noting that cases where extraordinary and compelling reasons are based on sentencing arguments “should be relatively rare”). As to Barrio’s claim about his predicate California conviction, Barrio contends that the district court overlooked this “independent ground[]” for relief. Aplt. Br. at 3, 10. But Barrio did not raise any allegation in his motion for compassionate release that his sentence should be reduced because he received relief from his predicate California conviction. Barrio’s only mention of his predicate California conviction was that he had “twice petitioned the United States Attorneys Office to concede and stipulate the prior non-felony California drug convictions under the Holloway doctrine or the novel amendments rendered by the First Step Act-2018” and that he had “renewed his pleading to AUSA Timothy W. Ogilvie . . . and expect[s] him to concede this third time request.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 208. As a result, the district court did not have an opportunity to address this claim, and “we adhere to our general rule against considering issues for the first time on appeal.” See United States v. Read-Forbes, 843 F. App’x 131, 134 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214, 1220 (10th Cir. 2012)). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Barrio’s circumstances were not extraordinary and compelling because it properly considered the amount of time that he already had served as well as the changes in sentencing law raised in Barrio’s motion. 11 Appellate Case: 21-6103 Document: 010110663352 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 12