Court Opinion

ID: 9368684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 18:00:41.539077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.096296
License: Public Domain

CLD-068                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-3099
                                       ___________

                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             v.

                                   ERIC CRAFT,
                                           Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                     (D.C. Criminal Action No. 1:02-cr-00011-001)
                      District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
                      ____________________________________

                Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
                 Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  January 12, 2023
        Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: February 6, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
         Appellant Eric Craft, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for

compassionate release filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government has

filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the

Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

         In 2002, Craft pled guilty to causing the death of another through the use of a

firearm possessed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to

480 months’ incarceration.1 We affirmed Craft’s sentence on direct appeal. See United

States v. Craft, 139 F. App’x 372 (3d Cir. 2005).

         In October 2022, Craft filed his fourth motion for compassionate release. Dkt. No.

542; see Dkt Nos. 499, 505, 533 (orders denying prior motions for compassionate

release). He argued that extraordinary and compelling reasons justified his release

because he is at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 as an African

American man who is obese with a history of smoking, especially in light of prison

conditions and the state of the pandemic. Dkt. No. 542 at 4-10. He further asserted that

his difficult upbringing and subsequent rehabilitation while in prison justified the grant of

compassionate release. Dkt. No. 542 at 10-11. Craft also sought the appointment of

counsel. Dkt. No. 541.

1
    He is currently scheduled to be released in August 2037.

                                               2
       The District Court denied Craft’s motion, reasoning that, because Craft had

previously contracted COVID-19 twice and recovered, he is not at an increased risk of

serious illness or death from COVID. Dkt. No. 543 at 3. The District Court also

concluded that the § 3553(a) factors weigh against release. Id. Finally, the District Court

denied the motion for appointment of counsel. Id. Craft timely appealed. Dkt. No. 546.

The Government asks that we summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s

order denying a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion and will not

disturb the 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 affirm on any

basis supported by the record, see Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011)

(per curiam), if the appeal presents no substantial question, see 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d

Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

       A district court “may reduce [a federal inmate’s] term of imprisonment” if it finds

that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Before granting compassionate release, a district court must consider

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

3582(c)(1)(A). Those factors include, among other things, “the nature and circumstances

of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1), and the

                                             3
need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the

law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”; “to afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct”; and “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” §

3553(a)(2)(A)-(C).

       Upon review, we discern no clear error of judgment in the District Court’s

conclusion that, even if Craft had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances as

required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of release.

The District Court reasonably concluded that several factors—including the seriousness

of Craft’s offense, the danger he poses to the community, and the significant time

remaining on his sentence—counseled against compassionate release. See § 3553(a)(1)

& (2); Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330-31 (denying motion for compassionate release

considering, among other factors, the time remaining on the defendant’s sentence and the

seriousness of the defendant’s crimes). Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Craft’s motion for compassionate release.2

2
  We also discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to deny Craft’s
motion for the appointment of counsel. See United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 795
n.4 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (recognizing that a district court may appoint counsel as
a matter of discretion).

                                             4
      For these reasons, the appeal does not present a substantial question. We grant the

Government’s motion for summary action and will summarily affirm the District Court’s

judgment.

                                           5