Court Opinion

ID: 9411507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:07.786206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.107256
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6693      Doc: 22         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6693

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LARENTO VALENTINO GRADY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00012-BO-1)

        Submitted: July 14, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E.
        Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6693       Doc: 22          Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Larento Valentino Grady appeals the district court’s order denying his 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), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. On appeal, Grady argues

        that the district court inadequately addressed his evidence in mitigation and relied on

        misapprehensions of fact and law when declining his request to reduce his sentence under

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

               We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling on a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

        motion 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

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

        erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Jenkins,

        22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               When deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a

        district court generally proceeds in three steps. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181,

        185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First, the district court considers whether “extraordinary and

        compelling reasons” support a sentence reduction. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Second, the court considers whether granting such a reduction would be “consistent with

        applicable policy statements issue by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted). Because there is currently no Sentencing Commission policy statement

        “applicable” to defendant-filed motions for compassionate release, “district courts are

        empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6693       Doc: 22         Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (cleaned up).    Third, if the court determines that the defendant has demonstrated

        extraordinary and compelling reasons, it must also consider any applicable sentencing

        factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to determine whether a sentence reduction is warranted.

        United States v. Mangarella, 57 F.4th 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2023).

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

        circumstances at the time of the original offense but also for significant post-sentencing

        developments,” such as rehabilitation efforts and the health risks to the defendant caused

        by the pandemic. Id. at 203. 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) (internal quotation marks omitted), petition for cert. filed,

        No. 21-7417 (U.S. May 1, 2023). 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).

               The district court need not address every argument raised by the defendant or

        “provide an exhaustive explanation analyzing every § 3553(a) factor” when ruling on a

        compassionate-release motion. Jenkins, 22 F.4th at 170. Nevertheless, the court must

        provide an explanation sufficient “to allow for meaningful appellate review” in light of the

        particular circumstances of the case. High, 997 F.3d at 190 (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “[T]he touchstone in assessing the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6693       Doc: 22          Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy our court that it has considered

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

        decisionmaking authority[.]” United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 199 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Here, the district court assumed without deciding that Grady established

        extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting compassionate release but determined

        that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief. In doing so, the district court

        described only Grady’s offense conduct and criminal history. As Grady observes, the

        district court did not acknowledge or address his postsentencing mitigation arguments,

        including his evidence of the various rehabilitative efforts he has undertaken while

        incarcerated. The court’s failure to acknowledge this evidence “does not by itself establish

        that the district court failed to consider [that argument], at least implicitly, in weighing the

        § 3553(a) factors.” Mangarella, 57 F.4th at 203-04. But we also have explained that,

        where a defendant “presents a significant amount of post-sentencing mitigation evidence,”

        the court must engage in a “more robust and detailed explanation” that permits meaningful

        appellate review of the court’s reasons for rejecting that mitigation evidence. High, 997

        F.3d at 190 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Grady’s rehabilitation evidence was sufficient trigger the court’s obligation to

        provide a more detailed explanation.         If credited, Grady’s argument regarding his

        significant efforts at rehabilitation during his years of incarceration, which he supported by

        documentary evidence, may cut against the district court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a)

        factors supported the original sentence, even accepting the premises underlying the

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6693         Doc: 22       Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        extraordinary and compelling reasons Grady alleged. “[W]hile the district court is still

        empowered in its discretion to consider the facts of [the defendant’s] original

        transgressions, the district court must also at least weigh [the defendant’s] conduct in the

        years since [his] initial sentencing[].” Bethea, 54 F.4th at 837 (internal quotation marks

        omitted). Absent more thorough treatment, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate

        review of the district court’s grounds for rejecting these arguments. ∗ Moreover, we

        conclude that the error is not harmless, as we are unable to “say with fair assurance that the

        district court’s explicit consideration of [Grady’s mitigation] arguments would not have

        affected” the court’s ruling on Grady’s motion. See United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d

        832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further

        proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                     VACATED AND REMANDED

               ∗
                We are unpersuaded by Grady’s additional argument that the district court relied
        on factual and legal misapprehensions regarding the requested and/or authorized scope of
        relief.

                                                      5