Reversing Denial of Compassionate Release Motion Based on 924(c) Disparity

US v. Brown: In 2014, Brown was convicted of (among other things) two counts of possessing a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, under 18 USC 924(c). At the time, the statute was written in such a way as to require the “second” of those convictions to carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years, served consecutively to any other imposed sentence – including the five-year mandatory minimum on the “first” 924(c) count. All told, Brown was sentenced to 687 months in prison.

In 2020, Brown filed a motion for compassionate release based on his increased risk of complications should he contract COVID-19 in prison. The motion also “highlighted the steps he had taken to rehabilitate since he was sentenced.” The district court initially denied Brown’s motion, but the Fourth Circuit remanded because the district court did not address all of Brown’s arguments. On remand, Brown argued that the changes to 924(c) – under which he would now be subject only to a pair of stacked five-year terms – separately constituted “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for his release. The district court again denied Brown’s motion, holding that he had not proven he was at a particularized risk from COVID-19 and that the 924(c) argument had not been properly presented to the Bureau of Prisons before Brown made it in court.

On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Brown’s motion. As to the COVID-19 issue, the court found no abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. As to the 924(c) disparity argument, however, the court held that it was a basis for relief. Noting that the district court’s procedural ruling was no longer good law under since-decided Fourth Circuit precedent, the court found that it was error for the district court to fail to address it (either as the basis for relief or under the relevant factors for imposing a new sentence). The court then reviewed the record and found that the 924(c) disparity was both an exceptional and compelling reason for granting relief and weighed heavily in determining a new sentence. Rather than remand, the court directed that Brown’s motion be granted and his sentence reduced.

Judge Quattlebaum dissented from what he called an “extraordinary, and in my view, regrettable decision.” He took issue not just with the majority’s conclusion of error on the district court’s failure to address the 924(c) disparity, but in the majority’s decision to directly order relief rather than remand.