Court Opinion

ID: 9351948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 16:01:13.207249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.776625
License: Public Domain

21-1106-cr
     United States v. Davila

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                       SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1                 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 4th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
 7               EUNICE C. LEE,
 8               ALISON J. NATHAN,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   United States of America,
13
14                              Appellee,
15
16                      v.                                                      21-1106-cr
17
18   Louis Davila, AKA Bam, AKA Bam Bam,
19
20                     Defendant-Appellant.*
21   _____________________________________
22
23   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:                             Louis Davila, pro se, Joint Base MDL, NJ.
24
25   FOR APPELLEE:                                        Anden Chow, Stephen J. Ritchin, Assistant
26                                                        United States Attorneys, for Damian
27                                                        Williams, United States Attorney for the
28                                                        Southern District of New York, New York,
29                                                        NY.
30

     *The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
1           Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

2    York (Daniels, J.).

3           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

4    DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 5          On February 8, 2018, Louis Davila was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 120

6    months in prison for pleading guilty to a conspiracy to distribute, and possess with intent to

 7   distribute, heroin and crack cocaine.      On December 4, 2020, Davila moved, pro se, for

 8   compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) seeking relief based primarily on the

 9   COVID-19 pandemic.       The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Davila had not

10   established any extraordinary or compelling circumstances and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

11   weighed against his release. Davila, again proceeding pro se, now appeals the district court’s

12   decision. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of

13   the case, and the issues on appeal, which we reference here only as necessary to explain our

14   decision.

15          We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See

16   United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 122 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam). A district court abuses its

17   discretion by ruling based on “an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment

18   of the evidence,” or when it has “rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of

19   permissible decisions.” United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal

20   quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce we are sure that the sentence resulted from the reasoned

21   exercise of discretion, we must defer heavily to the expertise of district judges.” United States v.

                                                     2
 1   Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc).

 2          Section 3582(c)(1)(A) provides that a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of

 3   imprisonment “after considering the factors set forth in Section 3553(a),” if it finds “extraordinary

 4   and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the

 5   decision is discretionary, a district court considers a motion for a sentence reduction in two steps.

 6   “First, the court must determine whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction. Second, if the

 7   defendant is eligible, the court must determine whether, and to what extent, to exercise its discretion

 8   to reduce the sentence.” United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2020).

 9          Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davila’s motion. Davila

10   failed to show any extraordinary or compelling reasons for compassionate release and did not

11   establish that he suffered from a medical condition that placed him at higher risk of a serious

12   COVID-19 infection. Although Davila suffers from asthma, his medical records did not establish

13   that his asthma was moderate to severe, which is the level the CDC recognizes as a risk factor for

14   severe complications from COVID-19. See People with Certain Medical Conditions, Centers for

15   Disease Control and Prevention (Nov. 2, 2022), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-

16   extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html.       Davila also failed to show that the

17   district court’s factual findings regarding the number of FCI Ray Brook inmates infected with

18   COVID-19 were clearly erroneous. In fact, Davila does not point to any evidence showing that

19   the number of COVID cases cited by the district court—zero infections at the time it denied

20   Davila’s motion on April 26, 2021—was incorrect.

21          Instead, Davila primarily focuses on the COVID-19 infection rate at FCI Fort Dix, the prison

22   where he was incarcerated when he wrote his appellate brief, arguing that the harsh lockdown

                                                       3
 1   conditions there are extraordinary and compelling circumstances that warrant compassionate

 2   release. But, as stated, this argument does not point to any error in the district court’s analysis of

 3   FCI Ray Brook, the prison where Davila was incarcerated when the district court decided his

 4   motion. We previously have determined that the conditions at a prison an appellant is later

 5   transferred to, and that were not considered by the district court, are not relevant to determining

 6   whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for compassionate release. See

 7   United States v. Halvon, 26 F.4th 566, 571 n.2 (2d Cir. 2022).

 8          The district court also considered Davila’s family circumstances, rehabilitation efforts,

 9   medical condition, and risk of contracting COVID-19, which generally weigh in favor of release,

10   but concluded that the § 3553(a) factors supporting his continued confinement—particularly the

11   seriousness of his offense and the need for deterrence—outweighed those considerations. Davila

12   does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors and we do

13   not independently perceive any error.

14          In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davila’s motion for

15   compassionate release. We have considered Davila’s remaining arguments and find them to be

16   without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

17                                                 FOR THE COURT:
18                                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                                      4