Court Opinion

ID: 9899538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:00:52.999574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:32.593121
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7283      Doc: 28         Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 6

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7283

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, JR., a/k/a Smitty,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:00-cr-00007-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 15, 2023

        Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jenny R. Thoma, Research & Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Ryan M. Kantor, Hillary C. Rankin,
        Rakesh Beniwal, Brittney E. Wozniak, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Pittsburgh,
        Pennsylvania, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Stephen Warner,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7283      Doc: 28         Filed: 11/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Allen Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order rejecting

        the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying Smith’s motion for compassionate

        release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018,

        Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review for abuse of discretion

        the district court’s denial of Smith’s request for compassionate release. United States v.

        Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). “A district court abuses its discretion when it

        acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to follow statutory requirements, fails to consider

        judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

        factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” Id. (cleaned up).

               When deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence based on “extraordinary

        and compelling” circumstances under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court generally

        proceeds in three steps. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First,

        the district court decides whether “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances support a

        sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, the district court considers

        whether granting a sentence reduction is “consistent with applicable policy statements

        issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because

        the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement applicable to defendant-filed motions for

        compassionate release had not been enacted when Smith’s compassionate release motion

        was filed, the district court was “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) (cleaned up). The district court then considers at the third step whether

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7283       Doc: 28         Filed: 11/15/2023      Pg: 3 of 6

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

        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

               Smith first argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that Smith

        did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. But the district court

        found that, even if Smith had presented extraordinary and compelling reasons for release,

        the § 3553(a) factors counseled against release. And we “can affirm a district court’s

        compassionate release decision regardless of a flaw in the eligibility analysis if its

        subsequent § 3553(a) assessment was sound.” Bethea, 54 F.4th at 833.

               When considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court “must account not only

        for the circumstances at the time of the original offense but also for significant

        post-sentencing developments,” such as the defendant’s rehabilitation efforts. United

        States v. Mangarella, 57 F.4th 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2023). The court’s “task in weighing

        compassionate release [is] not to assess the correctness of the original sentence it imposed.”

        United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 385 (4th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2596

        (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, courts are asked “to balance the severity

        of the inmate’s personal circumstances, on the one hand, against the needs for

        incarceration, on the other, . . . to determine whether [the] relevant § 3553(a) factors weigh

        against sentence reduction in light of new extraordinary and compelling reasons.” United

        States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 176 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). In doing so, district courts

        must provide enough explanation “to satisfy our court that it has considered the parties’

        arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority,

        so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Mangarella, 57 F.4th at 203 (internal

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7283       Doc: 28          Filed: 11/15/2023      Pg: 4 of 6

        quotation marks omitted). “[H]ow much of an explanation is required . . . depend[s] on the

        complexity of a given case.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When a case is

        “relative[ly] simpl[e],” the requirement to explain the reasons for denying release is

        satisfied if the order shows that “the district court was aware of the arguments, considered

        the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive reason” for denying the motion. High,

        997 F.3d at 191 (cleaned up).

               Smith argues the district court failed to set forth enough to show that it considered

        his arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking

        authority. We agree. Smith, who has been incarcerated for two decades, presented a

        significant amount of post-sentencing mitigation evidence, which obligates a district court

        to provide more a robust explanation for finding the mitigation evidence outweighed by

        other factors. See United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 412 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding

        that appellants had presented enough post sentencing mitigating evidence to require a more

        robust explanation because appellants had “spent nearly two decades in prison where,

        despite lengthy prison terms, they utilized the resources and programming they could

        access in prison to work toward rehabilitation”). Moreover, the judge who presided over

        Smith’s motion for compassionate release was not the same judge who sentenced him. See

        Bethea, 54 F.4th at 834 (noting that district court is less likely to have abused its discretion

        when judge who imposed initial sentence rules on compassionate release motion); see also

        High, 997 F.3d at 189 (same); United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 172 (4th Cir. 2021).

        In acknowledging Smith’s post-sentencing rehabilitation, however, the district court

        merely stated that Smith’s commendable conduct was outweighed by the other § 3553(a)

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7283       Doc: 28          Filed: 11/15/2023      Pg: 5 of 6

        factors. We conclude that the district court was required to provide a more robust

        explanation when deciding whether Smith’s post-sentencing rehabilitation was outweighed

        by the other § 3553(a) factors.

               Smith also argues that the court abused its discretion because it relied on erroneous

        factual premises when weighing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Kibble, 992

        F.3d 326, 332 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that a district court abuses its discretion when it relies

        on erroneous factual or legal premises). Specifically, when reciting Smith’s offense

        conduct, the court stated that Smith’s relevant conduct involved over 500 kilograms of

        cocaine base. But Smith was held responsible for 677.1625 grams of cocaine base. And

        when reciting Smith’s criminal history, the court characterized the current offense as

        Smith’s second federal drug case; however, Smith’s prior felony drug conviction was a

        state conviction.

               On this record, we cannot conclude that these misstatements of fact were harmless.

        The district court’s primary reason for finding the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release

        was that the seriousness of Smith’s offense conduct and criminal history outweighed the

        other § 3553(a) factors. And these facts—the drug weight attributable to Smith and

        whether his prior drug felony was a federal or state offense—were directly relevant to the

        severity of Smith’s offense conduct and criminal history.

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7283      Doc: 28        Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 6 of 6

              Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of Smith’s compassionate release

        motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. * 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.

                                                                   VACATED AND REMANDED

              *
               We express no opinion on the merits of the court’s denial of Smith’s request for
        compassionate release.

                                                    6