Court Opinion

ID: 9377032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 18:00:55.361069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.298254
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2111     Document: 010110821834      Date Filed: 03/06/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 6, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                             No. 22-2111
  v.                                            (D.C. No. 1:12-CR-00966-PJK-SMV-1)
                                                              (D. N.M.)
  RAYVELL VANN,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Appellant Rayvell Vann is serving a sentence due to his conviction by a jury in

 2013, of possessing PCP and codeine with the intent to distribute. Although the PCP

 charge carried a threshold mandatory minimum sentence of five years, Mr. Vann’s

 prior conviction for possessing a controlled substance raised that minimum term to

 fifteen years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2012). The district court imposed the

 enhanced sentence under § 841, incarcerating Mr. Vann for the fifteen-year

       *
         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. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 22-2111    Document: 010110821834        Date Filed: 03/06/2023        Page: 2

 mandatory minimum on the PCP conviction. The court also imposed a twelve-month

 sentence for the codeine charge to run concurrently with the fifteen-year PCP

 sentence.

       We affirmed Mr. Vann’s conviction on direct appeal, United States v. Vann,

 776 F.3d 746 (10th Cir. 2015), and in 2018, we denied his petition for a certificate of

 appealability for the denial of his initial motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, United

 States v. Vann, 715 F. App’x 865, 866 (10th Cir. 2018). Undeterred, Mr. Vann has

 filed nine motions that the district court has characterized as successive petitions

 under § 2255. See 1R. at 62–64 (detailing the motions and dispositions). Mr. Vann

 also filed four motions seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3582(c)(1)(A). See Supp.2R. at 52–56 (first); id. at 102–07 (second); 1R. at 43–57

 (third); id. at 70–74 (fourth). In response to the deluge of meritless motions, the

 district court entered an order prohibiting Mr. Vann “from filing any further pro se

 filings with this court raising claims brought in his successive § 2255 motions and

 arguments related to those claims that have already been decided by this court.”

 Supp.2R. at 108.

       In August 2022, Mr. Vann filed another motion for compassionate release,

 which is the subject of this appeal. 1R. at 70–74. In that motion, Mr. Vann raised

 several grounds for compassionate release, including his “extraordinary rehabilitation

 and accomplishments while in prison,” id. at 71; his deteriorating health, id. at 73;

 and a change in the law such that, if sentenced today, he would not receive a § 851

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-2111    Document: 010110821834         Date Filed: 03/06/2023     Page: 3

 enhancement increasing the mandatory minimum from five to fifteen years, id. at 71–

 72. The district court denied the motion. Id. at 75.

       The district court determined that Mr. Vann’s § 851 enhancement argument

 was essentially a challenge to the validity of his sentence and should have been

 brought under § 2255. Id. at 76. The court concluded, “this part of the motion

 violates the court’s order imposing filing restrictions and will not be considered.” Id.

 As to Mr. Vann’s other arguments, the court found they were properly considered

 under § 3582(c)(1)(A), but it denied them on the merits. Id. at 76–77.

       On appeal, Mr. Vann argues the district court erred by refusing to consider his

 change in the law argument as a proper ground for compassionate release. Mr. Vann

 is correct, and the Government concedes as much. We have held that changes in the

 law that would have reduced the defendant’s sentence if they had been available at

 his sentencing are properly considered as supporting a motion for compassionate

 release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), even when those changes are not made

 retroactive. See United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1047–48 (10th Cir. 2021)

 (reversing district court’s refusal to consider a nonretroactive reduction in the

 statutory penalty as grounds for compassionate release); United States v. Maumau,

 993 F.3d 821, 837 (10th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s reliance on

 nonretroactive reduction in statutory penalty as grounds for compassionate release).

 Nor can we conclude the district court’s error was harmless because the disparity in

 mandatory minimum sentences may have influenced its exercise of its wide

 discretion.

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-2111    Document: 010110821834      Date Filed: 03/06/2023    Page: 4

       Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court so that it can consider

 the change in the law regarding the § 841 enhancement, along with other relevant

 factors, in determining whether to grant Mr. Vann compassionate relief under 18

 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Carolyn B. McHugh
                                           Circuit Judge

                                           4