No Abuse of Discretion for Denial of Compassionate Release

US v. Kibble: Kibble pleaded guilty to travelling in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. He reported to being serving that sentence on February 14, 2020. Shortly thereafter, Kibble filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that his health conditions – a heart defect and non-alcohol related cirrhosis – left him more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19, which was running rampant through FCI Elkton, where he was housed. The district court concluded that Kibble had satisfied the necessary procedural requirements for filing the motion and that he presented “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief, but ultimately denied relief on the grounds that Kibble was a danger to others and that the 3553(a) sentencing factors did not support release.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court initially concluded that the district court erred by relying on Kibble’s danger to others, a factor set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines, as a basis for denying relief, as those factors are not binding in compassionate release proceedings at this time. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s reliance on the 3553(a) factors. Particularly, the court concluded that the district court did not put undue weight on the fact that Kibble had only served a small part of his sentence and had fully considered the relevant factors.

Judge Gregory concurred in the judgment, writing to “express my additional views on the court’s analysis and, more broadly, on the range of permissible considerations for motions for compassionate release.