Court Opinion

ID: 9891214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 20:00:53.438358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:39.465345
License: Public Domain

CLD-218                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 23-2044
                                      ___________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                           JEFFREY HOLLAND, Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:01-cr-00195)
                      District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
                      ____________________________________

                  Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
                   Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  September 21, 2023

             Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: October 17, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant Jeffrey Holland appeals from the District Court’s order denying

his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). The

Government has filed a motion to summarily affirm the District Court’s order. For the

following reasons, we will summarily affirm.

       In 2002, a federal jury found Jeffrey Holland guilty of trafficking 50 grams or

more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), using a firearm while

trafficking drugs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and other offenses. Holland was

sentenced to two concurrent life sentences, to be followed by a 60-month consecutive

sentence for the firearms conviction. We affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v.

Holland, 75 F. App’x 878 (3d Cir. 2003). Thereafter, Holland filed several unsuccessful

motions for post-conviction relief.1

       The present appeal concerns Holland’s September 16, 2020 motion for

compassionate release. See ECF Nos. 525, 589, 590, & 595. In that motion, Holland

requested compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), citing the COVID-

19 pandemic and arguing that he was at risk because of the prison’s inadequate mitigation

efforts and his various health issues, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, patchy

airspace disease, allergies, and digestive problems related to a salmonella food poisoning

1
 We are aware of the pending appeal in C.A. No. 22-2763, but it has no impact on this
appeal.

                                             2
outbreak in the prison in 2011. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that

Holland had not presented extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release and

that release was not warranted upon consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Holland now appeals. The Government filed a timely motion for summary affirmance.

Holland did not respond to the motion, and the response time has passed.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A), a

District Court may reduce a sentence if extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant

such a reduction. We review a District Court’s order denying a motion for

compassionate release for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb that decision unless

the District Court committed a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Pawlowski,

967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). We may summarily affirm a District Court’s decision

if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246,

247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

       We discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s conclusion that Holland

did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. As the District Court

noted, effective vaccines have reduced the risk of serious illness posed by COVID-19.

See United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, “for

the vast majority of prisoners, the availability of a vaccine makes it impossible to

conclude that the risk of COVID-19 is an ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason for

immediate release”). While Holland claimed that his health conditions made him more

                                             3
susceptible to serious complications related to COVID-19, “the mere existence of

COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone

cannot independently justify compassionate release, especially considering BOP’s

statutory role, and its extensive and professional efforts to curtail the virus’s spread.”

United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020). Holland did not demonstrate

that any additional risks posed by his health conditions warranted compassionate release.

See United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 260–62 (3d Cir. 2021) (finding no clear

error in the determination that defendant’s age, rehabilitation, and general susceptibility

to COVID-19 were not compelling reasons warranting compassionate release).

       Moreover, even if Holland had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances

as required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the District Court reasonably concluded that the

§ 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of release. The District Court incorporated the

§ 3553(a) analysis included in its September 7, 2022 memorandum opinion, see ECF No.

573 at 27–34, in which it concluded that several factors—including the circumstances of

the offense and the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the

law, provide punishment for the offense, and afford adequate deterrence to criminal

conduct—counseled against release. See § 3553(a)(1) & (2). The District Court did not

abuse its discretion in its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors.

       Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion for summary action and will

affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                              4