UNITED STATES v. BARNES (2021)

William Edward Barnes appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a compassionate release motion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To grant an inmate's motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court must (1) find that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction, and (2) consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see UN --; Kibble, 992 F.3d at 330-31 & n.3. “The district court enjoy[s] broad discretion in conducting this analysis.” Kibble, 992 F.3d at 330. “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).

Having reviewed Barnes’ appellate submissions and the record on appeal in view of these standards, we find no reversible error in the district court's denial of Barnes’ motion for compassionate release. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Barnes, No. 2:18-cr-00031-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. June 15, 2020). We deny Barnes’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.