Court Opinion

ID: 9913844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:37.688402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:32.328164
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038      Doc: 7        Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7038

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RANDALL J. KEYSTONE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
        Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00013-JPJ-1)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Randall J. Keystone, Appellant Pro Se. Paula Danielle Stone, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038      Doc: 7         Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Randall J. Keystone appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. In his motion, Keystone asserted that

        relief was warranted in light of his age, the nature of his offense conduct, the sentence he

        received and the nature of his sentencing, and his post-sentencing conduct and efforts at

        rehabilitation and because he was found guilty due to ineffective assistance of counsel and

        had served his fair share of punishment. The district court acknowledged Keystone’s

        assertion his conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel and concluded that

        relief was unwarranted based on his claim that he had served his fair share of punishment.

        For the reasons that follow, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further

        proceedings.

               Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of

        imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” The

        court is “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that

        a defendant might raise” in deciding whether to grant a defendant-filed motion. United

        States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The court also must

        consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors “to the extent that they are applicable.”

        § 3582(c)(1)(A).

               We review a district court’s ruling on a compassionate release motion for abuse of

        discretion. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). “A district court

        abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially

        recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038       Doc: 7         Filed: 12/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158

        (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Additionally, while there is no “categorical . . . requirement” that a district court

        explicitly address the movant’s arguments or elucidate its reasoning, the court also errs if,

        in light of the particular circumstances of the case, its explanation is “[in]adequate to allow

        for meaningful appellate review.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187, 189 (4th Cir

        2021); see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018) (“Just how much

        of an explanation [is] require[d] . . . depends . . . upon the circumstances of the particular

        case.”). At bottom, the district court must “set forth enough to satisfy [this] court that it

        has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

        decisionmaking authority.” High, 997 F.3d at 190 (cleaned up).

               Here, the district court explicitly considered Keystone’s arguments that he was

        found guilty because of ineffective assistance by trial counsel and that he had served his

        fair share of punishment. Nevertheless, the court’s order does not reveal whether it

        considered Keystone’s remaining arguments that relief was warranted in light of his age,

        the nature of his offense conduct, the sentence he received and the nature of his sentencing,

        and his post-sentencing conduct and efforts at rehabilitation and, if so, on what basis it

        rejected those arguments. Accordingly, we can only speculate as to whether the court

        adequately and reasonably considered Keystone’s arguments and properly applied the

        governing law, or whether it abused its discretion.

               We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

        We express no view as to the merits of Keystone’s compassionate release motion. We

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038     Doc: 7       Filed: 12/27/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        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.

                                                                VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                  4