Court Opinion

ID: 9395930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 21:00:27.503356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.815273
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6097      Doc: 6         Filed: 05/17/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6097

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROGELIO VIDAL SANTILLAN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00048-KDB-DSC-14)

        Submitted: May 8, 2023                                              Decided: May 17, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rogelio Vidal Santillan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6097      Doc: 6         Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Rogelio Vidal Santillan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We vacate the district

        court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

               We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse

        of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have held

        that “district courts are empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason

        for release that a defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th

        Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). A district court need not address every argument raised by a

        defendant in a compassionate release motion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187

        (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, “the touchstone must be whether the district court set forth enough

        to satisfy our court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis

        for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful

        appellate review.” Id. at 190 (cleaned up).

               Santillan presented three main arguments in his compassionate release motion: (1)

        health concerns related to Santillan’s long-haul covid symptoms and other ailments; (2)

        family circumstances; and (3) the lack of programming and good-time credits available to

        undocumented immigrants like himself. The district court’s order rejected this third

        argument, but it failed to mention, let alone address, the other two.

               In High, we considered several factors in determining that a district court’s

        explanation was adequate. 997 F.3d at 188-89. Particularly significant was that the district

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6097      Doc: 6        Filed: 05/17/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        judge who ruled on High’s compassionate release motion was the same judge who

        originally sentenced him, but we also observed that the district court had “added to its

        original consideration of” the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors at High’s sentencing hearing by

        discussing his recidivism. Id. at 189. We also contrasted High’s claims with those of the

        defendants in United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 396 (4th Cir. 2019), and United States

        v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 412 (4th Cir. 2021), noting that High had received no

        disciplinary infractions and had completed educational courses during his one-and-one half

        years of incarceration, while the defendants in Martin and McDonald, who each served

        nearly 20 years, “had presented a significant amount of post-sentencing mitigation

        evidence” that required a more detailed explanation by the district court. High, 997 F.3d

        at 190 (cleaned up).

               Here, as in High, the same district judge who presided over Santillan’s sentencing

        also denied his compassionate release motion. But while Santillan did not present a

        “mountain of new mitigating evidence” for the court to consider, see Martin, 916 F.3d at

        396-97, he offered potentially persuasive arguments. And unlike in High, the district court

        did not engage in any analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, ending its inquiry at the lack of

        extraordinary or compelling reasons.       Thus, we conclude that the district court’s

        explanation was inadequate.

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further

        proceedings. By this disposition, we express no opinion on whether Santillan’s additional

        arguments entitle him to compassionate release, leaving that decision to the district court

        in the first instance.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6097      Doc: 6         Filed: 05/17/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                               VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                    4