Court Opinion

ID: 9963943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 16:01:31.145843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:05.595129
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/25/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6683

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMES NATHAN PIZER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00006-RAJ-TEM-1)

        Submitted: April 5, 2024                                          Decided: April 25, 2024

        Before WYNN, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Edward A. Fiorella, Jr., FRAIM & FIORELLA, Norfolk, Virginia, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Joseph Attias, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683      Doc: 28          Filed: 04/25/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               James Nathan Pizer appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. Pizer’s motion was premised on the argument that, were he

        sentenced today, he would not be a career offender (as he was at his original sentencing)

        and would face a lower Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

               “This Court reviews the denial of compassionate release motions pursuant to 18

        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122,

        127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court has not acted arbitrarily

        or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has conducted the necessary

        analysis for exercising its discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               In considering a compassionate release motion, “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). At the time the

        court considered Pizer’s motion, there was no applicable Sentencing Commission policy

        statement governing defendant-filed motions for compassionate release; therefore, the

        court was “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release”

        that Pizer might raise. United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned

        up). After conducting this analysis, the district court may grant the motion “if (3) the

        relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.”

        Malone, 57 F.4th at 173.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683      Doc: 28          Filed: 04/25/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

               Pizer first argues that the district court erred in finding that he had not shown an

        extraordinary and compelling reason for release. However, he spends much of this

        argument asserting that the district court had the authority to consider whether the fact that

        he would face a lower Guidelines range if sentenced today was an extraordinary and

        compelling reason for release. However, the district court agreed with this conclusion,

        finding that Pizer had stated a cognizable claim but nonetheless concluding that this

        sentencing disparity failed to reach the level of extraordinary and compelling after

        considering Pizer’s individual circumstances.      The district court expressly considered

        Pizer’s arguments regarding the sentencing disparity and found them unpersuasive, given

        Pizer’s extensive criminal history, his serious criminal conduct in the instant case, and his

        age when he committed the underlying crimes. Such is an appropriate analysis, and to the

        extent Pizer is arguing that the district court was required to find that the sentencing

        disparity was an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, he is mistaken. See

        McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286. As such, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in finding that Pizer failed to show an extraordinary and compelling reason for

        release.

               Moreover, even if Pizer had shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for

        release, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the § 3553(a)

        factors weighed against Pizer’s release. On appeal, Pizer repeats his claims below and

        avers that his rehabilitation, behavior in prison, and release plan outweigh his serious

        criminal conduct and extensive criminal history. However, the district court weighed the

        factors differently after appropriate consideration. Such is not an abuse of discretion. See

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/25/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 838 (4th Cir. 2022) (affirming denial of

        compassionate release where district court weighed defendant’s rehabilitative conduct “but

        decided it was not significant enough to outweigh the other factors”).

               Accordingly, we affirm. 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