US v. Malone: In 2008, Malone was sentenced to 330 months in prison for drug and gun offenses. At the time he was already suffering from several medical issues, including cancer. In 2014, while successfully seeking a reduction to 288 months in prison due to retroactive Guideline amendments, Malone provided medical records showing additional issues including kidney disease, hypertension, and “other specified disorders of his liver.” In 2019, due to further decline in his health, Malone sought compassionate release. The district court denied that motion, finding that Malone had not met the standard for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons set forth in the Guidelines.
In 2020, after the COVID pandemic hit, the Bureau of Prisons moved Malone to home confinement (at his brother’s home) to serve his sentence. While on home confinement, the district court granted Malone’s motion to have the probation office do a home study of his own home, as the release to his brother’s home was “error” (he was forcing Malone to pay rent). Malone then filed a second motion for compassionate release, restating his lengthy catalog of medical issues. He also argued that if he were returned to prison (given that the home confinement placement is theoretically temporary) he would have severely increased odds of contracting COVID and suffering severe consequences. As to the relevant 3553(a) factors, Malone argued that he was not a danger to the community and had a viable release plan. The district court denied Malone’s motion in a brief order.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Malone’s motion for compassionate release. The court concluded that the district court failed to fully “reckon with Malone’s numerous, health-related extraordinary and compelling circumstances distinct from the COVID-19 pandemic” as well as the relevant 3553(a) factors. Particularly, the district court’s analysis was linked with its erroneous deference to the Guidelines in the 2019 denial order. Properly analyzed, Malone’s “numerous health conditions undoubtedly establish” a basis for release. Over time, the court concluded, “the balance of Malone’s relevant 3553(a) factors has shifted, and we find that his sentence is no longer just,” due to his “severely degenerated health and advanced age.” Therefore the court reversed “with instructions to grant Malone’s motion for compassionate release.”
Judge Harris concurred, agreeing that the district court’s denial should be reversed, but arguing that the court should remand for further proceedings (“I would do as Malone asks in his brief”), rather than direct that Malone’s motion be granted.
Congrats to the Defender office in Western VA on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment