Court Opinion

ID: 9840302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 21:00:27.18605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:07.206101
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6610      Doc: 15         Filed: 09/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-6610

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JERITON LAVAR CURRY, a/k/a Cheese,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00074-MOC-DSC-2)

        Submitted: July 26, 2023                                    Decided: September 14, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Richardson dissents.

        Jeriton Lavar Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6610      Doc: 15         Filed: 09/14/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeriton Lavar Curry appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In his motion and in a

        response letter to the court, Curry asserted that several factors warranted his release,

        including the Bureau of Prison’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at his facility, his

        elderly grandmother’s deteriorating health, changes in relevant sentencing law, and

        increasing violence at his prison facility. The district court acknowledged that, under

        current law, Curry no longer qualified as a career offender. Nevertheless, citing Curry’s

        offense conduct, criminal history, and disciplinary record while incarcerated, the court

        denied Curry’s request for release. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the district

        court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

               Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of

        imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” The

        court is “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that

        a defendant might raise” in deciding whether to grant a defendant-filed motion. United

        States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). The court must also

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

        § 3582(c)(1)(A).

               We review a district court’s ruling on a compassionate release motion for abuse of

        discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). “A district court

        abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially

        recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6610       Doc: 15         Filed: 09/14/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158

        (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Additionally, while there is no “categorical . . . requirement” that a district court

        explicitly address the movant’s arguments or elucidate its reasoning, the court also errs if,

        in light of the particular circumstances of the case, its explanation is “[in]adequate to allow

        for meaningful appellate review.”       United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187, 189

        (4th Cir 2021); see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018) (“Just how

        much of an explanation [is] require[d] . . . depends . . . upon the circumstances of the

        particular case.”). At bottom, the court must “set forth enough to satisfy [this] court that it

        has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

        decision-making authority.” High, 997 F.3d at 190 (cleaned up).

               Here, the district court explicitly considered Curry’s argument regarding his career

        offender status in denying his third motion for compassionate release. Additionally, the

        court addressed Curry’s vulnerability to COVID-19 in denying his first two motions for

        compassionate release. Thus, the court’s denial of Curry’s third compassionate release

        motion was arguably sufficient to “implicitly” respond to the similar COVID-19-based-

        argument that Curry raised therein. High, 997 F.3d at 189. Nonetheless, the court’s order

        does not reveal whether it considered Curry’s remaining arguments, and, if so, on what

        basis it rejected those arguments. Accordingly, we can only speculate as to whether the

        court adequately and reasonably considered Curry’s arguments and properly applied the

        governing law, or whether it abused its discretion.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6610      Doc: 15         Filed: 09/14/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

               We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

        We express no view as to the merits of Curry’s compassionate release motion. We deny

        Curry’s motion to supplement his appeal. 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

                                                    4