Court Opinion

ID: 9406111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:01:47.098394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.821297
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 8

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7200

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ALLAH BURMAN, a/k/a A,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:01-cr-00115-JKB-5)

        Submitted: March 30, 2023                                         Decided: June 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Allah Burman, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200        Doc: 16          Filed: 06/28/2023       Pg: 2 of 8

        PER CURIAM:

               Allah Burman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for

        compassionate release and denying reconsideration. On appeal, Burman’s issues include

        whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on erroneous factual premises.

        We vacate the district court’s orders and remand for further proceedings.

               “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.

        2023) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).

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

        abuse of discretion. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). “Under

        this standard, ‘this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the district court.’” Id.

        “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts ‘arbitrarily or irrationally,’ fails to follow

        statutory requirements, fails to ‘consider judicially recognized factors constraining its

        exercise of discretion,’ relies ‘on erroneous factual or legal premises,’ or ‘commit[s] an

        error of law.’”      Id.   We review a district court’s interpretation of the scope of

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) de novo. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022).

               “In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:

        (1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

        such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

        Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200       Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 8

        this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.

               While there is no policy statement applicable to compassionate release motions filed

        by defendants, meaning that “district courts need not conform, under § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s

        consistency requirement, to § 1B1.13 in determining whether there exist ‘extraordinary and

        compelling reasons’ for a sentence reduction,” the policy statement applicable to BOP-

        filed motions “remains helpful guidance even when motions are filed by defendants.”

        United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 282-83 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2020); Hargrove, 30 F.4th

        at 194. Moreover, while “a compassionate release motion cannot be used to challenge the

        validity of a defendant’s conviction or sentence,” because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive

        remedy for that, it may be used to argue “that a change in the sentencing law that occurred

        after [the sentencing] (but did not apply retroactively) merit[s] a reduction in [the sentence]

        to conform to that change.” Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 270-72; McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286 (finding

        “the severity of the defendants’ § 924(c) sentences and the extent of the disparity between

        [them] and those provided for under the First Step Act” were “permissibly treated as

        ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for compassionate release”).

               “The factors applicable to the determination of what circumstances can constitute

        an extraordinary and compelling reason for release from prison are complex and not easily

        summarized.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 197. “[T]he inquiry is multifaceted and must take

        into account the totality of the relevant circumstances.” Id. at 198.

               “When Congress authorized district courts, as a matter of discretion, to release an

        inmate from prison based on extraordinary and compelling reasons, it did so to introduce

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200       Doc: 16          Filed: 06/28/2023      Pg: 4 of 8

        compassion as a factor in assessing ongoing terms of imprisonment, authorizing a district

        court to give greater weight to an inmate’s personal circumstances—when sufficiently

        extraordinary and compelling—than to society’s interests in the defendant’s continued

        incarceration and the finality of judgments.” Id. at 197. “Thus, motions for relief under

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) ask courts to balance the severity of the inmate’s personal

        circumstances, on the one hand, against the needs for incarceration, on the other.” Id.

               “In any event, if a court finds that a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and

        compelling reasons, it is still not required to grant the defendant’s motion for a sentence

        reduction.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2021). “Rather, it must

        ‘consider[]’ the § 3553(a) sentencing factors ‘to the extent that they are applicable’ in

        deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s term of

        imprisonment.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).

               This Court presumes that the district court sufficiently considered relevant factors

        in deciding a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir.

        2021). “Although a district court is not required to address each of a defendant’s arguments

        for a reduced sentence, just how much of an explanation is required depends upon the

        narrow circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 170. “[T]he touchstone in assessing

        the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation 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.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023      Pg: 5 of 8

               We limit our review to issues raised in the informal brief, 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson

        v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), and will not generally consider issues raised

        for the first time on appeal, United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311, 318 (4th Cir.

        2021). But, we may consider an issue that was not raised in the district court “where refusal

        to consider the newly-raised issue would be plain error or would result in a fundamental

        miscarriage of justice.” Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We must

        liberally construe pro se filings. Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022).

               We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court abused its

        discretion by relying on at least one erroneous factual premise in both of its orders denying

        Burman’s motions for compassionate release and his pro se motion for reconsideration.

        We further conclude that the error was not harmless.

               Burman was indicted for and convicted by the jury of conspiracy to distribute five

        kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more

        of cocaine, and he was originally sentenced in 2003 to 360 months in prison. In Burman’s

        first direct appeal, we affirmed his convictions but remanded for resentencing under United

        States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At his resentencing, the district court confirmed

        and accepted the findings and calculations in the presentence report and determined that a

        sentence of 360 months, at the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range, was appropriate

        based on its consideration of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court also found

        that Burman was subject to an enhanced penalty due to the Government’s 21 U.S.C. § 851

        notice, but the enhancement did not ultimately affect his sentence, because it was within

        the statutory penalties that would apply without the § 851 enhancement. The district court

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023      Pg: 6 of 8

        entered an amended judgment on May 19, 2006 (PACER No. 164), and we affirmed that

        judgment. See United States v. Burman, 225 F. App’x 198 (4th Cir. 2007).

               Burman’s advisory Guidelines range was 360 months to life based on a total offense

        level of 42 and criminal history category III. Specifically, based on trial testimony, he was

        held responsible for 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine, making his base offense level 34; and

        he had a two-level enhancement for possessing a firearm, a four-level enhancement for

        being a leader or organizer, and a two-level enhancement for obstructing justice.

               In 2017, the district court denied Burman’s motion for a sentence reduction based

        on Amendment 782, because even though his base offense level was reduced to 32, his

        advisory Guidelines range was still 360 months to life. In 2019, the district court denied

        his motions under the First Step Act of 2018, which were predicated on First Step Act

        § 401. Specifically, Burman argued his § 851 enhancement was no longer valid, because

        his predicate prior conviction was not a serious drug felony. The district court denied his

        motions based on the reasons stated by the Government, i.e., that First Step Act § 401 was

        not retroactive, and First Step Act § 404 did not apply, based on his offenses of conviction.

               In 2021, Burman filed two pro se motions for compassionate release; and after the

        district court appointed him counsel, counsel filed a motion on his behalf. Burman argued

        the court should grant him compassionate release due to an alleged disparity between the

        sentence he received and the one he would receive if sentenced today; due to him no longer

        being subject to the § 851 enhancement; and due to an allegedly unwarranted disparity

        between his sentence and those of his co-defendants. The Government opposed the motion.

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200      Doc: 16          Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 7 of 8

               The district court denied Burman’s motions for compassionate release. The court

        recognized, based on the data presented by Burman, that his sentence was above average

        in terms of its length, but the court found that it need not conclusively determine whether

        his long sentence qualified as an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate

        release, because his release was not justified by the § 3553(a) factors. The court began its

        explanation for why the § 3553(a) factors did not favor his release by stating he participated

        in a large conspiracy to distribute between 15 and 50 kilograms of cocaine base. The court

        also stated earlier that he was sentenced for offenses related to an armed bank robbery.

               Burman appealed the district court’s order and moved for reconsideration, arguing

        that it included allegations that were not supported by the record, including that he was

        found guilty of bank robbery. In its order denying Burman’s motion for reconsideration,

        the court acknowledged that he was not convicted of bank robbery but determined that this

        did not change the court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. The court again explained the

        factors did not favor his release, given his participation in a large conspiracy to distribute

        between 15 and 50 kilograms of cocaine base, his possession of a firearm in connection

        with the offense, his prior convictions, and his disciplinary record while incarcerated.

               On appeal, Burman again contends the district court abused its discretion because

        its orders were based on facts that were not supported by the record, including not only that

        he was convicted of armed bank robbery, but also that he participated in a conspiracy to

        distribute 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine base. Although the court corrected its error in

        stating that Burman was convicted of bank robbery, we agree with Burman that the court

        abused its discretion in relying on the erroneous factual premise that he participated in a

                                                      7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7200       Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023      Pg: 8 of 8

        conspiracy to distribute 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine base. We further conclude that this

        error was not harmless. If he were responsible for 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine base rather

        than cocaine, his Guidelines range under the current Sentencing Guidelines would be life

        in prison; and the error therefore affects the court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors.

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for reconsideration

        and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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.

                                                                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      8