US v. Davis: In January 2013, Davis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess heroin with the intent to distribute it, was found to be career offenders, and ultimately sentenced to 210 months in prison (about the middle of the Guideline range). In 2021, he filed a motion for compassionate release, on two grounds: (1) that he was uniquely susceptible to COVID-19 and (2) that under US v. Norman he would no longer be considered a career offender. The district court denied the motion, finding that Davis was not particularly susceptible to COVID-19 and that the proper vehicle for addressing his career offender status was a §2255 motion. At any rate, the district court concluded, the relevant sentencing factors would not support a reduced sentence.
On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit partially affirmed and partially vacated the district court’s ruling. As to the COVID-19 holding, the court affirmed, concluding that Davis’ argument was “unpersuasive” because he could not show that his risk of contracting the disease, or suffering a fatal case of it, was higher outside of prison than inside. As to the career offender argument, the court concluded that the district court erred in viewing Davis’ argument as an attack on his original sentence. Rather, the court concluded that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion that “changes in law are fair game in compassionate release motions.” Thus, the case had to be remanded for the district court to consider the impact of the changed law and whether it was an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction.
Judge Rushing dissented and would have affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the district court’s consideration of the required sentencing factors demonstrated that it had considered all of Davis’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for rejecting his request.
No comments:
Post a Comment