Court Opinion

ID: 9405245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:31.387519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.451673
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7136

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TODD BELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00219-RDB-3)

        Submitted: May 30, 2023                                           Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Todd Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Todd Bell appeals from the district court’s order and amended judgment granting

        his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and reducing his

        sentence to 332 months’ imprisonment. Bell sought a reduction to time served, asserting

        that the elimination of the “stacking” of sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) pursuant to the

        First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”), was an

        extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. We affirm.

               Courts may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons

        warrant such a reduction,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and we review a district court’s

        ruling on the motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329

        (4th Cir. 2021). “[D]istrict 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). But a reduction may not

        be granted without first considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the extent

        applicable. Kibble, 992 F.3d at 331. District courts have “broad discretion” in analyzing

        the relevant sentencing factors. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). And “it weighs against an abuse of discretion—and is

        viewed as significant—when the same judge [as in this case] who sentenced the defendant

        rules on the compassionate release motion.” Id. “[T]here’s a strong indication that the

        judge knows of the defendant’s circumstances, both favorable and unfavorable, and

        considers the totality of the record when assessing whether a different sentence is now

        warranted.” Id.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136      Doc: 17          Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 3 of 4

               In McCoy, we held that the district court may treat “the severity of the defendants’

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

        those provided for under the First Step Act” as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for

        compassionate release. McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286. We acknowledged that Congress did not

        make the changes to the stacking rules retroactively applicable and thus does not “mandate

        more lenient sentences across the board but instead gives new discretion to the courts to

        consider leniency.” Id. at 288. We must determine whether the court set forth enough to

        show “that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising

        its own legal decisionmaking authority[.]” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th

        Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

        the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a reduction greater than the one granted by the court.

        The district judge who considered Bell’s motion was the same judge who originally

        sentenced him, a factor that is significant in determining whether the court properly

        exercised its discretion.     Id. at 189.   The court also explicitly considered Bell’s

        rehabilitative efforts and the sentences received by his codefendants, but concluded that

        those factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the convictions, Bell’s criminal history,

        and the risk of recidivism.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136     Doc: 17         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and amended judgment and deny

        Bell’s motion for relief from judgment. 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

                                                   4