Court Opinion

ID: 9365588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 17:00:45.657484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.713253
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3089     Document: 010110802263       Date Filed: 01/24/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 24, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-3089
                                                   (D.C. No. 6:20-CR-10005-EFM-4)
  JEREMY J. SNYDER,                                            (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Jeremy J. Snyder, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of

 his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release. The

 government elected not to file a response brief. Exercising jurisdiction under

 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       In September 2020, Mr. Snyder pleaded guilty to the use of a communication

 facility to facilitate the commission of a drug crime in violation of 21 U.S.C.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-3089    Document: 010110802263       Date Filed: 01/24/2023     Page: 2

 § 843(b), and to possession of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).

 In April 2021 he was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Snyder is currently

 incarcerated at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution (FCI La Tuna). His

 projected release date is May 1, 2024, but he is eligible for home detention on

 November 2, 2023.

       In March 2022, Mr. Snyder filed a motion for compassionate release, asserting

 that many courts had granted compassionate release because of the threat of

 COVID-19. He alleged that the vaccines lose their effectiveness after four to six

 months, with record numbers of COVID-19 infections resulting in record numbers of

 COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. And he argued that the “extraordinary and

 compelling number of COVID cases in prison[,]” his “health issues of obesity and a

 history of smoking[,]” and “the impossibility to social distance as recommended by

 the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),] warrant[ed] a sentence

 reduction.” R., vol. I at 113.

       In May 2022 the district court denied the motion. Although the district court

 recognized that the CDC has found that Mr. Snyder’s medical condition of obesity

 may increase his risk of severe illness from COVID-19, the court concluded he did

 not show a high risk. The court based this risk assessment on the following evidence:

 (1) there was no widespread COVID-19 outbreak at FCI La Tuna at the time of its

 decision (no active inmate cases and only three active staff cases) and the prison has

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-3089    Document: 010110802263        Date Filed: 01/24/2023      Page: 3

 taken steps to control outbreaks; (2) Mr. Snyder has been fully vaccinated;1 and

 (3) he has already contracted COVID-19 with no serious medical complications. The

 court therefore determined that Mr. Snyder had not met his burden to demonstrate

 “an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting a sentence reduction.” Id.

 at 258.

       We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for

 compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Hemmelgarn,

 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it

 relies on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id.

 (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Under § 3582(c)(1)(A) a district court engages in a three-step process to

 determine whether to grant a motion for compassionate release. The court considers

 whether (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction”;

 (2) the “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

 Sentencing Commission” (though there is no applicable policy statement at this

 time); and (3) the relevant sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warrant a

 reduction. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 937-38, 938 n.4 (10th Cir. 2021)

 (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2742 (2022). A district

       1
         As the government noted in its response brief in district court, prison records
 show that Mr. Snyder initially refused a COVID-19 vaccine on October 5, 2021, and
 tested positive for COVID-19 about a month later. Mr. Snyder then agreed to be
 vaccinated on January 7, 2022.

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-3089     Document: 010110802263          Date Filed: 01/24/2023     Page: 4

 court may properly deny a compassionate-release motion if any of these three

 prerequisites is lacking and need not address the other two. See id. at 942-43.

        On appeal Mr. Snyder raises the following issues: (1) the district court erred in

 finding there is no widespread COVID outbreak at FCI La Tuna; (2) “vaccinations do

 not stop more contagious variants,” Aplt. Br. at 3; (3) “[he] does have

 extraordinary/compelling reasons,” id. at 4; (4) “previous COVID infection does not

 eliminate risk,” id.; (5) “fully vaccinated inmates [are] still at risk,” id. at 5; and

 (6) the district court ignored case law in support of a sentence reduction and cited to

 case law that came out before omicron and other variants. We construe Mr. Snyder’s

 pro se brief liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon,

 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

        We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny

 Mr. Snyder’s motion for compassionate release. The court gave a reasoned basis for

 its decision and did not rely on any erroneous factual findings or incorrect

 conclusions of law. First, the district court’s factual finding that there was no

 widespread COVID outbreak at FCI La Tuna at the time of its decision is not clearly

 erroneous. Mr. Snyder has offered no evidence that this finding was untrue when the

 district court entered its order on May 4, 2022, which is the relevant timeframe, see

 Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032.

        Next, although Mr. Snyder contends that vaccinations do not stop more

 contagious variants and fully vaccinated inmates are still at risk, the district court did

 not err in finding that Mr. Snyder’s being fully vaccinated decreases his risk for

                                               4
Appellate Case: 22-3089    Document: 010110802263        Date Filed: 01/24/2023       Page: 5

 severe illness from COVID-19 and therefore “changes the calculus on the

 extraordinary and compelling reasons inquiry,” R., vol. I at 258 (internal quotation

 marks omitted). According to the CDC, vaccination does lessen the potential for

 severe illness from COVID-19.2

       As for Mr. Snyder’s argument that a previous COVID-19 infection does not

 eliminate the risk of reinfection, the district court found that Mr. Snyder had no

 serious medical complications when he contracted COVID-19 in November 2021.

 Mr. Snyder does not challenge that finding. The district court therefore did not abuse

 its discretion in considering his prior infection when determining that he was not at

 high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 even with his underlying medical

 conditions. See Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032 (“[T]he district court’s statement that

 [the inmate] recovered from COVID-19 despite his medical conditions is simply

 consistent with the view that those conditions do not place him at high risk of severe

 illness from COVID-19.”).

       Mr. Snyder also complains the district court ignored case law that supported a

 sentence reduction, but the district court did not ignore or fail to comply with any

 binding precedent in denying his motion. In any event, in considering compassionate

 release because of COVID-19, the relevant considerations may differ from prisoner

       2
         “COVID-19 vaccination significantly lowers your risk of severe illness,
 hospitalization, and death if you get infected.” CDC, Frequently Asked Questions
 About COVID-19 Vaccination, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
 ncov/vaccines/faq.html (last updated Dec. 22, 2022).

                                            5
Appellate Case: 22-3089    Document: 010110802263         Date Filed: 01/24/2023    Page: 6

 to prisoner, from institution to institution, and from one month to the next, thereby

 greatly reducing the persuasive effect of any particular nonprecedential decision.

       Only one argument from Mr. Snyder merits further mention. When discussing

 Mr. Snyder’s risks from COVID-19, the district court specifically noted the increase

 in risk of severe illness because of his obesity, citing a CDC report. Mr. Snyder

 suggests that the court did not also consider his history of tobacco and drug use. We

 are not persuaded. In the preceding paragraph the court had explicitly referenced

 Mr. Snyder’s history of tobacco and drug use. The natural inference is that the court

 discounted the risk from those conditions for the same reasons it discounted the risk

 arising from his obesity—the vaccinations received by Mr. Snyder significantly

 decreased his risk of severe disease or death and his prior infection did not result in

 any severe medical complications.

       We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining

 that Mr. Snyder failed to demonstrate an extraordinary and compelling circumstance

 warranting a sentence reduction. The district court provided a reasoned basis for

 denying Mr. Snyder’s motion and did not rely on any incorrect conclusions of law or

 erroneous factual findings. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Harris L Hartz
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             6