Court Opinion

ID: 9960028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-14 21:00:32.473001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:06.378305
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6472      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/12/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6472

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        PATRICK SMITH, a/k/a Pee,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-ELH-1)

        Submitted: November 13, 2023                                      Decided: April 12, 2024

        Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Patrick Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6472      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/12/2024        Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Patrick Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a new trial

        and denying as moot his third motion for compassionate release. We affirm the court’s

        order denying a new trial and vacate the order denying compassionate release and remand

        for further proceedings.

               In a criminal proceeding, a motion for a new trial is governed by Fed. R. Crim P. 33.

        We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new

        trial. United States v. Moore, 709 F.3d 287, 292 (4th Cir. 2013). As noted by the district

        court, Smith was ineligible for a new trial because he had pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea

        agreement. “By its express terms, Rule 33 is confined to those situations in which a trial

        has been had.” United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir. 1995); see also United

        States v. Spaulding, 802 F.3d 1110, 1125 n.20 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting that Rule 33 does

        not apply to convictions obtained by guilty plea). We conclude that the court did not abuse

        its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for a new trial.

               Smith filed three motions for compassionate release. The district court denied the

        first two motions, finding that Smith’s health issues qualified as extraordinary and

        compelling reasons for early release, but denying the motions because the 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors warranted against Smith’s release. Smith’s third motion for

        compassionate release, in which he requested that his sentence be reduced to time served,

        appeared to show the Smith’s health was declining. In particular, Smith asserted that he

        suffered kidney failure. Smith also noted that his fiancé had passed away, leaving no one

        to care for her two adopted children. And Smith claimed he was rehabilitated. While the

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6472      Doc: 21          Filed: 04/12/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        motion was pending with the district court, Smith was released by the Bureau of Prisons to

        home confinement under the CARES Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2). The district court

        concluded that Smith’s motion was moot because he had been released to home

        confinement.

               “A sentencing court may not, as a general matter, ‘modify a term of imprisonment

        once it has been imposed.’” United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 194 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “But a district court may reduce a sentence through a

        motion for compassionate release.” United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir.)

        (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2596 (2023). We review a

        district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United

        States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023). “[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 legal premises, or

        commits an error of law.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 195 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               A district court’s decision whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence under 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) generally entails three steps. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181,

        185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First, the court must determine whether the defendant demonstrates

        extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see

        High, 997 F.3d at 185-86. Second, a court may grant a reduction only if it is “consistent

        with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). Third, even if a court finds extraordinary and compelling reasons for

        compassionate release, it retains the discretion to deny the motion after balancing the

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6472      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/12/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        applicable § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). “[A] district court must

        consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to

        grant a motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).” United States v.

        Mangarella, 57 F.4th 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2023).

               In his motion for compassionate release, Smith requested that his sentence be

        reduced to time served. Even though Smith was transferred to home confinement, he is

        still serving his sentence and remains in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. United

        States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). Pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A), the

        district court has discretion to reduce Smith’s sentence—even to time served—and to order

        Smith’s immediate release. Because it is possible for the district court to grant Smith

        effectual relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) by reducing his prison sentence or releasing him

        from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, his motion for compassionate release was not

        rendered moot by his release to home confinement.

                Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Smith’s motion for a

         new trial, but vacate the order denying compassionate release as moot and remand for

         further proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of Smith’s motion for

         compassionate release. We 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.

                                                                          AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                           VACATED IN PART,
                                                                            AND REMANDED

                                                    4