Court Opinion

ID: 9949082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 19:01:09.486302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:37.016649
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 24a0106n.06

                                           No. 23-5519

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                      FILED
                                                                                        Mar 08, 2024
                                                                                KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
                                                         )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                         )
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                               )    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
                                                         )    STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
v.                                                       )    THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
                                                         )    TENNESSEE
LARRY EVERETT SMITH,                                     )
       Defendant-Appellant.                              )                                OPINION
                                                         )

Before: SILER, NALBANDIAN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

       SILER, Circuit Judge. The day Larry Smith reported to prison, he determined that he could

not stay. So, he requested compassionate release, claiming that his preexisting medical conditions

constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. He also applied for enrollment

in the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), which could

potentially afford him the opportunity for early release. But that program requires a history of

substance abuse in the year prior to an applicant’s arrest, which Smith did not have. After his entry

was denied, Smith claimed that the denial itself presented another extraordinary and compelling

reason for his release. The district court disagreed and denied Smith’s motion for compassionate

release. Smith claims this was an abuse of discretion. Because Smith’s medical conditions were

exhaustively considered during his sentencing, and because he was never guaranteed entrance to

RDAP, we affirm the district court’s denial.

       Smith also moved to amend his presentence report (PSR) and the district court’s statement

of reasons to include newly produced evidence of his “extensive history” of substance abuse, so

that he could gain enrollment to RDAP. But by the time of his request, Smith was already directly
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

appealing his sentence. With Smith’s direct appeal pending, the district court concluded it did not

have jurisdiction to amend his PSR or authority to amend its statement of reasons. We agree.

   I.        Background

        a.     Smith’s Guilty Plea, PSR, and Sentencing

        Smith and his accomplices deceived thousands of patients and defrauded health insurance

providers out of more than $24.9 million. Smith negotiated a plea agreement and pled guilty to a

single count of conspiring to commit healthcare fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 1349.

        The United States Probation Office prepared Smith’s PSR. The PSR discussed his brief

and bygone history of substance abuse. It stated that Smith, 52 years old at the time, “admitted he

experimented with cocaine and Ecstasy approximately 20 years ago” and “first tried marijuana

when he was 25 or 26 years old” but “used marijuana rarely, and his last use occurred in September

2018.” He disclosed no history of drug treatment but expressed interest in treatment while in

prison. The PSR did not address Smith’s alcohol use but noted that he was “exposed to alcohol”

as a child. Smith did not object to the PSR’s characterization of his substance use or medical

conditions. His sentencing memorandum did not mention any history of substance abuse. The

letter that he provided from his psychotherapist, from whom he sought mental health counseling,

also did not include any reference to substance abuse. Nor did Smith or his counsel mention

substance abuse during his sentencing hearing.

        Smith’s PSR summarized his medical conditions and noted that he was under the care of a

cardiologist, gastroenterologist, and psychologist.     In his sentencing memorandum and his

arguments at his sentencing, Smith discussed his medical conditions at length. Smith requested a

non-custodial sentence based on “significant, congenital cardiovascular issues that require regular

monitoring,” that, in his view, would best be cared for by his existing doctors. He pointed out that

                                               -2-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

his failing heart valves, last replaced ten or eleven years before his sentencing, would have to be

replaced every ten to fifteen years—implying that they would presumably have to be replaced

during his sentence.

       Following a lengthy review of Smith’s medical history, the district court acknowledged

Smith’s desire for continued care by his preferred providers but concluded that home confinement

“would undermine practically every purpose of sentencing.” The district court determined that

BOP could provide adequate medical care.

       As to substance abuse, the district court “recommend[ed] that [Smith] receive 500 hours of

substance abuse treatment from [RDAP],” and although “maybe there’s not a strong reason to do

that . . . there is some old history of substance abuse . . . [and] you have expressed interest in

treatment[.]” The district court warned Smith that “if [the RDAP officials] determine you don’t

have a drug problem, they won’t let you in the program,” but that “if you get in that program and

you successfully complete it, you can earn some time off.”

       The district court calculated Smith’s guideline range as 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment,

but sentenced him to 42 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. Smith appealed

the reasonableness of his sentence. While Smith’s appeal was pending, he filed a motion for

compassionate release in the district court. The claims in his motion can be sorted into two

separate, but interrelated, areas: substance abuse treatment and medical treatment.

       b.      Smith’s Substance Abuse Treatment

Smith undergoes two post-sentencing evaluations.

       Ten days after his sentencing, Smith hired a therapist to conduct a Substance Abuse Subtle

Screening Inventory. During the screening, Smith claimed to have drunk twelve to fifteen shots

of alcohol in one sitting every three weeks. He also claimed that he stopped using marijuana after

                                               -3-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

he was indicted. The therapist determined that Smith had a high probability of having a substance

use disorder in the years preceding his arrest and that he required intensive treatment for alcohol

and substance use. However, she recommended that he continue his therapy with his current

psychotherapist, whose sessions did not center around substance abuse.

       Smith also hired a psychologist to conduct a Psychological Evaluation Report regarding

his “self-reported symptoms of alcohol abuse.” During the evaluation, Smith claimed to have an

extensive history of alcohol abuse, which continued after his arrest date. In contrast to both his

interviews with the therapist and his probation officer, he told the psychologist that he used

marijuana four to six times a week as an adult, and five or six times while on pre-trial release. The

psychologist issued his report one week before Smith reported to prison, diagnosing Smith with

“[a]lcohol use disorder, severe.” He recommended that Smith enroll in an intensive treatment

program “such as [a] Residential Drug Abuse Program[.]”

Smith requests admission to RDAP.

       Smith applied for RDAP the day he reported to prison. BOP deemed Smith ineligible to

participate in RDAP because his PSR did not contain information sufficient to establish a pattern

of substance abuse during the year before his arrest. Instead, Smith was offered several options,

including a nonresidential drug abuse program or other means of verifying his substance abuse.

Smith’s counsel then sent BOP copies of the therapist’s and psychiatrist’s post-arrest evaluations,

directly and through the Probation Office. BOP deemed the reports unacceptable because they

were created after Smith’s arrest. See Dept. of Justice, BOP Program Statement No. 5330.11,

§ 2.5.8(2) (requiring documentation “within the 12-month period before the inmate’s arrest”).

                                                -4-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

Smith moves to amend the PSR and statement of reasons to include his alleged substance abuse.

       Next, Smith filed a motion asking the district court to amend the PSR to “fully articulate

his long-documented history of drug and alcohol abuse so that he will qualify for RDAP and obtain

necessary treatment for his substance abuse disorder.” He also asked the court to amend the

statement of reasons for its judgment to “effectuate” its previous recommendation that Smith

participate in RDAP. Specifically, he asked Probation to supplement the PSR with information

concerning his “long-documented” history of substance abuse from his two post-sentencing expert

reports, and asked the district court to consider his experts’ opinions in its statement of reasons.

       Smith filed this motion while the direct appeal of his sentence remained pending. He

argued that, under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the district court can

“correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the

record arising from oversight or omission” at any time. He also argued that BOP’s failure to admit

him to RDAP constituted a violation of his due process protections.

The district court denies Smith’s motion to amend.

       The district court found otherwise. It denied Smith’s motion to amend the PSR and

statement of reasons, holding that 1) it lacked jurisdiction to amend the PSR or statement of

reasons, as any amendments would alter the underlying facts of Smith’s sentence, which Smith

was appealing; 2) the proposed amendment was “plainly outside the bounds of Rule 36”; and, 3)

even if it had jurisdiction to amend its statement of reasons, it lacked authority to do so, as the

proposed amendment “would be an impermissible supplementation of the Court’s unexpressed

sentencing expectations long after sentencing.”

                                                 -5-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

       c.      Smith’s Medical Treatment

Smith requests compassionate release.

       The day he reported to prison, Smith asked BOP to seek a reduction in his sentence under

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) or otherwise transfer him to home confinement due to his “significant

physical and mental illnesses,” noting that he would need an aortic valve replacement. When BOP

did not respond to his request within 30 days, Smith filed a motion for compassionate release in

the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He provided four grounds for release: 1) his

medical issues; 2) his vulnerability to COVID-19, 3) BOP’s inadequate treatment of his medical

issues, and 4) BOP’s inadequate treatment of his substance abuse issues. Smith provided over 700

pages of documents, including reports from three medical experts urging his release.

Smith receives medical treatment while incarcerated.

       While incarcerated, Smith developed a cough. A week after he reported his cough, the

prison clinic diagnosed Smith with bronchitis, prescribed him antibiotics and steroids, and

following some tests, referred him to a cardiologist. Smith was hospitalized for five days to

undergo testing. He was diagnosed with a “not acute” condition requiring replacement of his aortic

valve in the next three to six months, as predicted during his sentencing. Smith consented to a

second aortic valve replacement, which was scheduled for the following month.

Smith amends his motion for compassionate release.

       Following his return from the hospital, Smith again requested that BOP grant him

compassionate release. After BOP denied his request, he filed a supplemental motion with the

district court. He noted his upcoming surgery and asked to be released so that he could recover at

home. Smith also urged the district court to consider two proposed amendments to the sentencing

                                              -6-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

guidelines, which he argued should reduce his sentence, as “relevant consideration[s]” to his

motion.

       Smith underwent aortic valve replacement surgery while his motion was pending. He filed

a reply asserting that compassionate release was still necessary to prevent complications while he

recovered.

The district court denies Smith’s motion for compassionate release.

       The district court denied Smith’s motion. It first found that Smith failed to exhaust his

claims arising from his valve replacement surgery and declined to review them. It then determined

that Smith’s medical conditions did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for his

release because they existed or were predicted at the time of his sentencing, and because Smith did

not show proof that BOP could not manage his conditions. It also noted that Smith’s “desire to

see his own doctors, on his own terms, is not an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant

his release.”

       Next, the district court found that Smith’s susceptibility to COVID-19 was not an

extraordinary and compelling reason for his release because he was fully vaccinated. See United

States v. McCall, 56 F.4th 1048, 1061 (6th Cir. 2022) (en banc). It then found that Smith’s

ineligibility for RDAP was not an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release, as the

program was never guaranteed to him, and he had the option to receive other forms of substance

abuse treatment. In any event, the district court reasoned, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors still

weighed against Smith’s release, as he committed a serious offense, showed “blatant disregard for

the law,” and only served 9 months of his 42-month sentence. The district court also found it did

not have jurisdiction to hear Smith’s claims regarding BOP’s denial of his admittance to RDAP.

                                               -7-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

           This appeal followed.1

    II.         Standard of Review

           We review compassionate release decisions for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1112 (6th Cir. 2020). We review de novo a district court’s determination as

to whether it has jurisdiction to issue a correction under Rule 36. United States v. Robinson, 368

F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 2004).

    III.        Discussion

           a.      Smith’s Motion for Compassionate Release

           The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for compassionate

release. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may “reduce a defendant’s sentence

only if it finds that the defendant satisfies three requirements: (1) ‘extraordinary and compelling

reasons warrant such a reduction’; (2) the ‘reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commission’; and (3) the relevant [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors support

the reduction.” United States v. Hunter, 12 F.4th 555, 561 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)).      “[F]acts that existed when the defendant was sentenced cannot later be

construed as ‘extraordinary and compelling’ justifications for a sentence reduction.” Id. at 562.

The district court properly denied Smith’s argument because he could not demonstrate any

extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. 2

1
 We affirmed Smith’s sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable in July 2023. United
States v. Smith, No. 22-5559, 2023 WL 4703864 (6th Cir. July 24, 2023).
2
 Both the government and Smith spend much time arguing about whether we should require issue-
specific exhaustion for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release. But we
need not reach that argument, as Smith’s motion was meritless.

                                                  -8-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

       Medical Conditions: Smith argues that his medical conditions—specifically his cardiac

conditions—could be better managed outside of custody and required his release. However, Smith

raised these same arguments during his sentencing, where the district court considered them and

treated them as mitigating factors, and then determined that BOP had sufficient facilities and

resources for his treatment—including his likely valve replacement surgery. These facts therefore

existed during sentencing, and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) “precludes a court from simply taking

facts that existed at sentencing and repackaging them as ‘extraordinary and compelling.’” Hunter,

12 F.4th at 569. The only material change in Smith’s condition since his incarceration has been

his valve replacement surgery. Because that surgery was anticipated, he has not shown that his

medical condition has “changed after sentencing in a way that is ‘extraordinary and

compelling[.]’” Id.

       Smith also argues that BOP failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. But as

the district court pointed out, Smith has presented no evidence that BOP cannot manage his

conditions. He received a valve replacement from a private hospital after a long-term, long-

anticipated deterioration. And while Smith was treated for bronchitis one week after he first

reported a cough, the government points out that such a gap in treatment was akin to, if not shorter

than, the care Smith received outside of prison for similar bronchitis diagnoses and treatments

following coughs. Smith asserts that he would prefer to recover from his May 2023 surgery at

home, where he can have his choice of providers. But as the district court found, Smith’s “desire

to see his own doctors, on his own terms, is not an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting

his release.”

       COVID-19:      The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Smith’s

susceptibility to COVID-19 is not an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting his release

                                               -9-
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

because he has previously received COVID-19 vaccinations and does not claim that he does not

have access to booster shots. See United States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747, 751 (6th Cir. 2021) (“[A]

defendant's incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic—when the defendant has access to the

COVID-19 vaccine—does not present an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ warranting a

sentence reduction.”).

       Denial of RDAP: The district court properly determined that Smith’s denial of admission

into RDAP was not an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting his release because RDAP

was not guaranteed to him and was not a condition of his incarceration. After the district court

recommended that Smith participate in RDAP, BOP had the authority to approve or deny his

enrollment. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011) (“A sentencing court can

recommend that the BOP place an offender in a particular facility or program. . . .           But

decisionmaking authority rests with the BOP.” (emphasis removed)). Furthermore, substance

abuse treatment is still available to Smith through outpatient programs.

       Sentencing Guidelines Amendment: Smith argues that Amendment 821 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, effective November 1, 2023, and effective retroactively February 1, 2024, supports his

release. See Press Release, U.S. Sentencing Commission, U.S. Sentencing Commission Votes to

Allow Retroactive Sentence Reductions and Announces Its Next Set of Policy Priorities (Aug. 24,

2023), https://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/august-24-2023. The amendment was not

effective as of Smith’s May 2022 sentencing or the district court’s May 2023 denial of his motion

for compassionate release.3

3
  Smith re-raised his reduction motion to the district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The
district court granted in part Smith’s motion and reduced his sentence from 42 months to 35 months
imprisonment.

                                              - 10 -
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

        The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors: Because Smith failed to show an extraordinary and

compelling reason warranting a reduction, the district court and this court need not consider the

application of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021)

(“[D]istrict courts may deny compassionate-release motions when any of the three prerequisites

. . . is lacking and do not need to address the others.”).

        But, for the sake of thoroughness: The district court did not abuse its “considerable

discretion” in determining that the § 3553(a) factors did not support Smith’s compassionate

release. See United States v. Overmeyer, 663 F.3d 862, 864 (6th Cir. 2011). In its denial of Smith’s

motion for compassionate release, the district court discussed Smith’s health conditions, medical

treatment, ability to care for himself, susceptibility to COVID-19, substance abuse treatment

options, non-violent offense, and good behavior. It weighed those factors against the seriousness

of Smith’s $24.9 million healthcare fraud scheme, his “blatant disregard for the law,” and the fact

that he had only served 9 months of his 3.5-year sentence. The district court concluded that any

reduction in Smith’s sentence “would not reflect the seriousness of his offense, promote respect

for the law, afford adequate deterrence, or adequately protect the public from future crimes.”

        Smith complains that the district court focused on the seriousness of his offense and brevity

of his time in prison, rather than his medical issues, and alleges that the court “refus[ed] to consider

[his] present medical condition and the level of care provided by BOP.” The district court’s nearly

ten-page analysis of Smith’s medical conditions and treatment suggests otherwise.4 Regardless,

4
  We also note that, because Judge Greer both sentenced Smith and considered Smith’s motion for
compassionate release, he already considered and balanced the § 3553(a) factors “the first time
around”—so, even “even a barebones form order could have sufficed” in denying Smith’s motion
for compassionate release. United States v. Keefer, 832 F. App’x 359, 363-64 (6th Cir. 2020)
(internal quotations omitted).

                                                 - 11 -
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

“[b]ecause [Smith’s] argument ultimately boils down to an assertion that the district court should

have balanced the § 3553(a) factors differently, it is simply beyond the scope of our appellate

review, which looks to whether the sentence is reasonable, as opposed to whether in the first

instance we would have imposed the same sentence.” United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326, 332

(6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted).

       b.      Smith’s Motion to Amend his PSR and Statement of Reasons

       When Smith directly appealed his sentence, this court took jurisdiction over every aspect

of his case having to do with his sentence—including his PSR and statement of reasons. When he

then moved to amend his PSR and statement of reasons, the district court properly determined that

it did not have jurisdiction or authority to make such amendments.

       “Subject to very few exceptions, the filing of a notice of appeal shifts from the district court

to the court of appeals adjudicatory authority over any aspect of the case . . . involved in the

appeal.” United States v. Carman, 933 F.3d 614, 615 (6th Cir. 2019). While the district court

retains “limited jurisdiction to take actions in aid of the appeal,” United States v. Sims, 708 F.3d

832, 834 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted), it cannot take “actions that alter the case on

appeal.” Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., 332 F.3d 1007, 1013 (6th Cir. 2003)

(internal quotations omitted).5

       Smith sought to add two expert reports concerning his substance abuse, among other

alterations, to his sentencing record. He repeatedly insists, without further explanation, that these

5
 For example, some appellate courts allow district courts to use this exception to memorialize oral
opinions in the days after a decision was rendered, even if a party has already filed a notice of
appeal. Such action would be considered “in aid of the appeal.” See Inland Bulk Transfer Co.,
332 F.3d at 1013 (compiling cases).

                                                 - 12 -
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

amendments would “not impact the merits of his appeal.” His argument is contradictory. When

Smith directly appealed his sentence, he asked this court to consider whether his sentence was

reasonable based on the facts in the record. So, we were tasked with examining, among other

factors, the content of Smith’s PSR, his “personal history, character,” and his “medical conditions”

to determine whether his sentence was reasonable. See Smith, 2023 WL 4703864 at *3-4. While

we were considering that appeal, Smith asked the district court to amend his sentencing record to

add evidence of severe substance abuse—a critical component of both his personal history and his

medical condition. In other words, Smith asked the district court to alter the merits of his

sentencing while, at the same time, he asked us to examine those very same merits. The district

court did not have jurisdiction to make such alterations. See United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d

1373, 1382 (6th Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that the filing of the notice of appeal with the district

court clerk deprives the district court of jurisdiction to act in matters involving the merits of the

appeal.”).6

        c.      Smith’s Due Process and Eighth Amendment claims

        Smith claims that his inability to participate in RDAP violates his Eighth Amendment

protections against cruel and unusual punishment and his due process rights. By refusing him

RDAP, Smith claims, BOP is refusing him a potential one-year sentence reduction, which he

equates with substantive unfairness and an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.

6
  Smith insists that a district court’s ability to alter a PSR with an appeal pending is an issue of
first impression in the Sixth Circuit. While this may technically be the case, our law is clear: once
an appeal is pending, district courts cannot take actions that alter the case on appeal. See Inland
Bulk Transfer Co., 332 F.3d at 1013.

                                                 - 13 -
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

       The district court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear these claims because ineligibility

from RDAP should be challenged through a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the jurisdiction where

the prisoner is being held. Smith failed to respond to this finding in his appellant brief, and instead

only restated it without argument. It is impossible to tell whether he even disagrees that the district

court lacks jurisdiction. Because Smith failed to present any argument, he forfeited this claim.

See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 556-67 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a

perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed

waived[.]”) (internal quotations omitted).

       Regardless of Smith’s forfeiture, his arguments are as meritless as they are conclusory.

First, regarding Smith’s due process challenge: BOP has discretion to determine which prisoners

are eligible to participate in an RDAP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(5)(B); see also Standifer v.

Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276, 1280 (10th Cir. 2011) (“A prisoner has no constitutional right to

participate in RDAP . . . and similarly, a prisoner has no liberty interest in discretionary early

release for completion of RDAP[.]”) (citation omitted).

       Second, regarding his Eighth Amendment challenge: Smith was not denied treatment. He

was denied entry to RDAP, a residential treatment program. Smith can seek treatment through

BOP’s nonresidential substance abuse programs and does not explain why these would be

unacceptable.

        Finally, even if Smith had been admitted into RDAP, BOP would not have been obligated

to reduce his sentence. United States v. Smith, 474 F.3d 888, 895 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Even if a

defendant completes [RDAP], the BOP does not have to reduce the sentence.”) (citing 18 U.S.C.

§ 3621(e)(2)(B)). Because Smith was denied neither treatment nor a sentence reduction, and

because he cannot challenge his denial of RDAP in this court, his argument is meritless.

                                                - 14 -
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

   IV.      Smith’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice or Supplement the Record

         On the day his reply was due, Smith asked us to take judicial notice of, or supplement the

record with, 300 pages of “medical and institutional information” he alleges were made available

after the district court’s order. His motion is largely a rehashing of his appellate argument, and

centers around the significance of the content of these documents. The government took no

position on this motion. We deny Smith’s motion for four reasons.

         First, Smith is not truly asking us to take judicial notice of the records, as “courts do not

take judicial notice of documents, they take judicial notice of facts.” Abu-Joudeh v. Schneider,

954 F.3d 842, 848 (6th Cir. 2020). Rather, Smith is “asking us to take judicial notice of the contents

of these documents for the truth of the matters they assert.” This is a motion to supplement the

record and will be evaluated as such. Id.

         Second, the documents are inappropriate for supplementation on appeal. Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) allows for the correction of omissions or misstatements in the records

caused by error or accident. It does not permit the introduction of “new evidence in the court of

appeals,” which is exactly what Smith proposes to do. United States v. Murdock, 398 F.3d 491,

500 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Smith, 344 F.3d 479, 486 (6th Cir. 2003)); Inland

Bulk Transfer Co., 332 F.3d at 1012. Smith asserts, without argument, that these documents cannot

reasonably be disputed. But even if we were to assume that the parties do not dispute the existence

of the records, there would likely be “considerable dispute over the significance of [their]

contents,” given the fact that Smith’s motion for compassionate release concerns his medical

condition. United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 553 (6th Cir. 1993). Indeed, Smith argues that the

documents show that his “overall health continues to worsen in BOP custody.” Supplementing the

record with these documents would go beyond correcting omissions or misstatements. Id.; see

                                                - 15 -
Case No. 23-5519, United States v. Smith

also United States v. Husein, 478 F.3d 318, 337 (6th Cir. 2007) (declining to supplement the record

with documents of disputed significance). We decline to do so.

       Third, many of the 300 pages of documents are dated before the district court’s order

denying Smith’s motion for compassionate release. Smith does not explain when the records

became available to him or why he delayed in submitting them. “Permitting [Smith] to supplement

the record on appeal with information that [he] could have easily obtained much earlier would not

advance the interests of justice and would not further efficient use of judicial resources.” Sigler v.

Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 477–78 (6th Cir. 2008).

       Finally and perplexingly, Smith did not substantively cite any of these many documents in

his reply brief, other than to support his assertion that he has not received a COVID-19 booster

this year. Even if we were to allow the record to be supplemented, the impact on Smith’s argument

would be negligible.

       Smith’s motion to take judicial notice is DENIED and the district court’s order denying

compassionate release is AFFIRMED.

                                                - 16 -