Court Opinion

ID: 9958245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 17:00:43.535021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.159395
License: Public Domain

DLD-091                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-3096
                                       ___________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                                 RICHARD POTTS,
                                  a/k/a Nasir Haqq;
                                  a/k/a Nasir Jones;
                                     a/k/a Nasir;
                                      a/k/a Naz,
                                               Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                     (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-01-cr-00457-003)
                     District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
                      ____________________________________

                       Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for
          Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                 March 21, 2024

               Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed April 8, 2024)
                                      _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

        Pro se Appellant Richard Potts appeals the District Court’s denial of his motions

for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government has

timely moved for summary affirmance. For the reasons stated herein, we will summarily

affirm the District Court’s denial of Potts’ motions.

        A jury found Potts guilty of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack

within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 860, and murder in

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). He

was sentenced to life imprisonment. Acting pro se, Potts filed a Motion for

Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the Amended First

Step Act of 2018. Shortly thereafter, he filed a New/Supplemental Motion for

Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the Amended First Step

Act of 2018, and the United States Sentencing Guidelines effective November 1, 2023.

The District Court denied these motions, and Potts timely appealed.

        We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s

denial of compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Andrews,

12 F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021). We may summarily affirm a district court’s judgment

if the appellant fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27. 4 and I.O.P.

10.6.

        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court “may reduce the term of

imprisonment” and “impose a term of probation or supervised release,” in an action often

                                              2
referred to as “compassionate release,” if a prisoner demonstrates that “extraordinary and

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

       In his motions, Potts presented four bases for relief: (1) serious medical conditions

that make him especially vulnerable to COVID-19 and its variants; (2) his rehabilitation;

(3) his age at the time of his offenses; and (4) his unusually long sentence combined with

changes in sentencing laws. He alleged that he suffered from the effects of long COVID,

asthma, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, hypertension, epilepsy, and a host of

other medical conditions. He has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and has

received treatment for kidney disease and seizure disorder. After noting that Potts’

medical conditions did not appear to be restricting his activities of daily living or self-

care, the District Court concluded that Potts’ medical conditions did not constitute an

extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate release. See United

States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) (noting that “the mere existence of

COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone

cannot independently justify compassionate release”); United States v. Pawlowski, 967

F.3d 327, 331 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that even serious medical conditions may not

warrant compassionate release).

       The District Court also rejected Potts’ arguments regarding his rehabilitation and

his age at the time of his offenses. See Andrews, 12 F.4th at 262. It also rejected his

argument regarding the length of his sentence, because Potts failed to show a change in

the law that produces a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the

                                              3
sentence likely to be imposed at the time Potts filed his motion. Indeed, as the District

Court noted, Potts has presented this argument twice before the instant proceedings and

been rejected both times. It also concluded that, even if Potts had presented an

extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, this relief would

nevertheless be unwarranted in light of the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

       Upon review, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to

deny Potts’ motions for compassionate release. For the reasons the District Court

provided, we agree with its determination that none of Potts’ first three grounds for

relief—i.e., his medical conditions in light of COVID-19 and its variants; his

rehabilitation; and his age at the time of his offenses—amounts to an extraordinary and

compelling reason for compassionate release. With respect to his argument related to the

length of his sentence, we note that an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that

went into effect on November 1, 2023, provides that a “change in the law . . . may be

considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and

compelling reason,” but only if (1) the defendant received “an unusually long sentence,”

(2) the defendant has served at least 10 years of the sentence, and (3) there is a “gross

disparity” between the defendant’s sentence and the one he likely would receive

following the change in law. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6); see also § 1B1.13(c) (providing

that “a change in the law . . . shall not [otherwise] be considered for purposes of

determining whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists”). Prior to the 2023

Amendment, we have relied on Andrews, in which we held that a change in statutory

                                              4
sentencing law was not an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for resentencing where

Congress had expressly made the change non-retroactive. Andrews, 12 F.4th at 261.

       We have yet to squarely address the impact that the new sentencing guideline

amendment may have on our holding in Andrews. But even assuming arguendo that a

change in decisional law regarding sentencing can constitute an “extraordinary and

compelling reason” for resentencing, that does not avail Potts, since he failed to identify

such a change in the law. Furthermore, even if Potts had presented an extraordinary and

compelling reason for resentencing, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s

conclusion that compassionate release would be inappropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) factors, specifically the nature and circumstances of Potts’ offenses—murder and

drug trafficking on a massive scale—and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the

seriousness of these crimes.

       In his appeal, Potts does not present a substantial question. Accordingly, we grant

the Government’s motion, and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                             5