Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Shawn ADAMSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Shawn Adamson appeals from the denial of his motion for compassionate release. He seeks release based upon his susceptibility to COVID-19 and the particular alleged risks at FCI Danbury. We affirm.
The district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” upon a motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or by “the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court's ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The Sentencing Commission has set forth circumstances that constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release, including, among others, a defendant's age and medical condition. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)-(B), (D), p.s. “In the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, courts have found extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release when an inmate shows both a particularized susceptibility to the disease and a particularized risk of contracting the disease at his prison facility.” United States v. Feiling, 453 F. Supp. 3d 832, 841 (E.D. Va. 2020) (citing cases).
We find that Adamson has failed to show either a particularized high risk of susceptibility to coronavirus or a current particularized risk of contracting the disease at Danbury. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-6969
Decided: December 15, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)