Court Opinion

ID: 9404381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:21.837966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.416198
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7561      Doc: 45         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-7561

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTWAN BASS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00265-GLR-1)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                           Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before AGEE, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Shari Silver Derrow, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore,
        Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Ayn B. Ducao, Christina
        A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7561      Doc: 45         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Antwan Bass appeals the district court’s form order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release as supplemented by counsel. We review

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

        States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 195 (4th Cir. 2022).

               Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court

        considered Bass’ serious medical condition and the Bureau of Prisons’ treatment in

        denying the motion. Moreover, a court need not acknowledge every argument for relief,

        especially where, as here, the same district court judge who considered Bass’ motion

        sentenced him less than two years prior, and Bass presented minimal rehabilitation

        evidence. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting adequacy

        of barebones form order where judge’s reasoning is obvious from record).

               Further, the district court did not err in considering preventing an unwarranted

        sentencing disparity between Bass and his codefendant in denying Bass relief. “A district

        court is not required to consider the sentences of codefendants, and it is well settled that

        codefendants and even coconspirators may be sentenced differently for the same offense.”

        United States v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Because

        Bass and his codefendant were not similarly situated, a sentencing disparity here is

        expected and appropriate. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (requiring sentencing courts to

        consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

        similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”). We therefore conclude

        that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bass’ motion for

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7561      Doc: 45         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        compassionate release.     See High, 997 F.3d at 191 (concluding that when case is

        “relative[ly] simpl[e],” the district court’s order denying compassionate release must show

        that “the district court was aware of the arguments, considered the relevant sentencing

        factors, and had an intuitive reason” for denying the motion (cleaned up)).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                     3