Court Opinion

ID: 9893759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 17:00:55.493251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:27.723107
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                   ___________

                       No. 23-2157
                       ___________

             UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                             v.

                 HARVEY HOLLAND,
                                   Appellant
        ____________________________________

      On Appeal from the United States District Court
          for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
            (M.D. Pa. No. 1:01-cr-00195-006)
       District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
       ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                  on September 21, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

             (Opinion filed: October 30, 2023)
        ____________________________________
                                       ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

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

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

ment 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 Holland guilty of distributing and possessing, with

the intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, as well as a related conspiracy

charge. Holland was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences.1 We affirmed on direct

appeal. See United States v. Holland, 76 F. App’x 452 (3d Cir. 2003). Thereafter, Hol-

land filed several unsuccessful motions for post-conviction relief.

       In September 2020, Holland filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), arguing that several medical conditions placed him at a higher

risk of serious illness from COVID-19. See ECF No. 526. Two years later, in September

2022, Holland filed a “motion under § 3582(c)(1)(a) compassionate release to supplement

the record with additional evidence which constitute[s] extraordinary and compelling

*
   This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
  In 2022, the District Court granted Holland’s motion for resentencing pursuant to
§ 404(b) of the First Step Act and resentenced him to two concurrent terms of 40 years’
imprisonment. See ECF Nos. 575, 576, 577, & 581. Holland has appealed that judg-
ment, and the appeal remains pending in C.A. No. 22-2764. However, that appeal has no
impact on this appeal.
                                             2
reasons,” seeking to add new claims to his September 2020 motion. Specifically, Hol-

land argued that the trial judge’s response to a question from the jury influenced the jury

to determine that Holland had distributed over 50 grams of crack cocaine, and that the re-

sponse constituted “judicial misconduct.” He claimed that the evidence was insufficient

to establish the weight of the drugs and that he accordingly should have been sentenced

to a term of 0 to 20 years’ imprisonment. See ECF No. 578.

       The District Court considered the September 2020 and September 2022 motions

separately and issued separate judgments. First, the District Court denied the September

2020 motion, concluding that COVID-19 and Holland’s medical conditions were not ex-

traordinary and compelling reasons justifying release and that release was not warranted

upon consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.2 Shortly thereafter, the District

Court denied the September 2022 motion, concluding that Holland’s lawfully imposed

sentence did not create an extraordinary or compelling circumstance warranting release

and noting that his sufficiency of the evidence claim had already been rejected by this

Court. See ECF No. 591.

       The present appeal concerns Holland’s September 2022 motion. 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 Dis-

trict Court may reduce a sentence if extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a

2
 Holland appealed that judgment. See C.A. No. 23-2063. However, that appeal has no
impact on this appeal.
                                             3
reduction. We review a District Court’s order denying a motion for compassionate re-

lease 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.

       Although couched as arguments in support of compassionate release, Holland’s

proffered grounds for compassionate release attack the legal validity of his convictions

and sentences, which is “the heart of habeas corpus.” See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500

U.S. 136, 141 (1991) (cleaned up). Compassionate release is not a means of avoiding the

standards for obtaining relief via successive § 2255 motions or § 2241 petitions. See

Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (stating that § 2255 motions

“are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or

sentences”); United States v. Brock, 39 F.4th 462, 465 (7th Cir. 2022) (noting that “the

compassionate release statute cannot be used to challenge a sentence on grounds the de-

fendant could have advanced on direct appeal”); United States v. Fine, 982 F.3d 1117,

1118–19 (8th Cir. 2020) (holding that a defendant’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion challenging

his sentence amounted to an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion).3 And to

the extent that Holland argued that the length of his sentence warranted early release, the

3
 Moreover, regarding the sufficiency claim, this Court has previously expressed “that we
have no doubt that the evidence permitted the jury to conclude that Holland was responsi-
ble for 50 or more grams of crack cocaine.” Holland, 76 F. App’x at 456.
                                              4
District Court correctly highlighted that “[t]he duration of a lawfully imposed sentence

does not create an extraordinary or compelling circumstance.” United States v. Andrews,

12 F.4th 255, 260–61 (3d Cir. 2021).

       Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the

District Court’s judgment.

                                            5