Court Opinion

ID: 9901768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 16:01:25.19593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.963164
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5068     Document: 010110957191       Date Filed: 11/22/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        November 22, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-5068
                                                   (D.C. No. 4:10-CR-00190-GKF-1)
  JAMES STEVEN MAXWELL,                                       (N.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**
                  _________________________________

       Defendant-Appellant James Steven Maxwell appeals from the district court’s

 denial of his motion for compassionate release, specifically his second motion to

 reconsider. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

 and we affirm.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
        **
           After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 23-5068   Document: 010110957191       Date Filed: 11/22/2023    Page: 2

                                     Background

       In 2011, a jury convicted Mr. Maxwell of two counts of being a felon in

 possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 1 R. 21–22. Due to his extensive

 criminal history, including nine prior felony convictions, 2 R. 836, Mr. Maxwell was

 classified as an armed career criminal subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum

 sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1);

 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4; 2 R. 814, 825. He was sentenced to 195 months’ imprisonment. 1

 R. 24. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. United States v.

 Maxwell, 492 F. App’x 860, 869 (10th Cir. 2012). Mr. Maxwell later unsuccessfully

 sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591

 (2015), and we denied a certificate of appealability. United States v. Maxwell, 743

 F. App’x 255, 256–57 (10th Cir. 2018).

       Mr. Maxwell advanced several arguments in support of compassionate release

 including concerns over COVID-19, his substantial rehabilitation and clear

 institutional conduct record, and that his sentence would be much lower now since

 the armed career criminal enhancement and mandatory minimum would no longer

 apply. 1 R. 79, 127–39, 150–57; 2 R. 48–54. The district court denied his motion for

 compassionate release and his first motion to reconsider. 1 R. 123–26, 144–49. On

 his second motion to reconsider, the district court found Mr. Maxwell’s argument

 concerning the armed career criminal enhancement to be an “extraordinary and

 compelling reason” to reduce his sentence. Id. at 163. Nevertheless, in weighing the

                                           2
Appellate Case: 23-5068    Document: 010110957191        Date Filed: 11/22/2023    Page: 3

 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court concluded that Mr. Maxwell’s extensive and

 serious criminal history justified his long sentence. Id. at 164–65.

       On appeal, Mr. Maxwell argues that the court erred by improperly weighing

 the § 3553(a) factors — giving too much weight to his previous convictions and too

 little weight to his successful rehabilitation, good prison conduct, low recidivism

 scores, and eligibility for a lower sentence because of the mandatory minimum’s

 inapplicability.1 Aplt. Br. at 3–6. He also argues that the court erred in considering

 the first two factors without considering the remaining five, which he believes weigh

 in favor of compassionate release. Id. at 6–7.

                                       Discussion

       We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s order denying relief on a

 § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion and any subsequent motions to reconsider. United States v.

 Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). Consistent with the language of

       1
          The government urges us to reject Mr. Maxwell’s claim as a successive
 § 2255 motion for which he could not obtain statutory authorization to file. 28
 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Aplee. Br. at 13–14 & n.1. Mr. Maxwell questions whether it is
 possible for the § 3553 factors to weigh in favor of a sentence over the statutory
 maximum. Aplt. Br. at 7. We do not view his argument as requesting relief under
 § 2255. See United States v. Wesley, 60 F.4th 1277, 1288 (10th Cir. 2023)
 (prohibiting compassionate release motions that circumvent § 2255). In other words,
 Mr. Maxwell does not argue that his original sentence is erroneous. He argues only
 that he would have been sentenced differently today because Congress “made the
 relevant sentencing provisions more lenient.” United States v. Robinson, No. 21-
 7065, 2023 WL 5607511, at *3 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023). We have recognized the
 validity of these arguments when seeking compassionate release under
 § 3582(c)(1)(A). See id. (citing United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 824 (10th
 Cir. 2021)).
                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-5068    Document: 010110957191        Date Filed: 11/22/2023     Page: 4

 § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a sentence if (1) extraordinary and

 compelling reasons warrant the reduction; (2) the reduction is “consistent with

 applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;” and (3) the

 district court considers any applicable § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Maumau,

 993 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2021). Mr. Maxwell challenges the district court’s

 reasoning under step three.

       The district court exercises discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, so we

 cannot reverse without “a definite and firm conviction that [it] made a clear error of

 judgment[.]” United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 949 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation

 omitted). Here, the court weighed Mr. Maxwell’s extensive criminal record heavily,

 finding that he “is a serial offender whose criminal exploits are interrupted only by

 imprisonment.” 1 R. 165. And “despite his favorable institutional adjustment[,]” the

 court found Mr. Maxwell’s criminal activity while under court-ordered conditions to

 be problematic when considering the danger of recidivism for public safety. Id. We

 agree — Mr. Maxwell spent most of his adult life incarcerated as he repeatedly

 committed offenses upon release from prison. Id. at 164–65; 2 R. 815–23.

       As to Mr. Maxwell’s argument regarding the then-mandatory minimum under

 the ACCA, the court properly considered his eligibility for a lower sentence as an

 “extraordinary and compelling reason” under the first part of the Maumau analysis.

 There is no requirement, however, that the court also factor this into its consideration

 under § 3553(a), and it properly focused on factors (a)(1) and (a)(2). The court “need

 not rely on every single factor[.]” United States v. Rutland, No. 22-8073, 2023 WL

                                            4
Appellate Case: 23-5068    Document: 010110957191         Date Filed: 11/22/2023    Page: 5

 3580141, at *4 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Barnes, 890 F.3d 910, 916

 (10th Cir. 2018)). Nor must it “afford equal weight” to each factor. Id. (quoting

 United States v. Cookson, 922 F.3d 1079, 1094 (10th Cir. 2019)).

        Mr. Maxwell urges us to find that his rehabilitation and good prison conduct

 outweigh the factors properly considered by the district court, citing the out-of-circuit

 case United States v. Salliey, No. RDB-10-0298, 2023 WL 1970491 (D. Md. Feb. 13,

 2023). Aplt. Br. at 4–6. There, the court granted compassionate release despite the

 defendant’s likely recidivism because his “nonviolent” record demonstrated

 substantial rehabilitation, and “his criminal history was not as troubling” as others

 that qualified for ACCA treatment. Salliey, 2023 WL 1970491, at *4. Here, Mr.

 Maxwell’s record is far from nonviolent: in 1981 he assaulted two individuals with a

 knife, 2 R. 815, in 1982 he pointed a rifle at a female, id. at 816, in 1985 he stabbed

 yet another person, id., and in 1994 he assaulted a fellow inmate with a shank, id. at

 820.

        We understand Mr. Maxwell’s violent convictions are more than 25 years old,

 but the district court bears the responsibility of weighing the risk Mr. Maxwell poses

 to the public. It has properly done so while considering the other factors.

        AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Maxwell’s motion for leave to proceed in

 forma pauperis.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            5