UNITED STATES v. ALLEN (2020)

ORDER

Michael James Allen appeals the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release. The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

In 2013, Allen pleaded guilty to selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm to a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1). Allen sold the firearm to Roderic Dantzler, who used it in a deadly shooting rampage in which he killed seven people and wounded two others, then took three hostages and killed himself after a stand-off with police. Allen received the stolen firearm as collateral for a drug debt before selling it to Dantzler. Before his arrest, Allen made threatening statements to a confidential informant and others linked to the firearm suggesting that they should not cooperate with law enforcement, resulting in an enhancement to his offense level for obstruction of justice. The district court sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment, the statutory maximum and the top of the guidelines range.

In May 2020, Allen filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the rapid spread of Covid-19 in the prison system generally and at FCI Milan, where he is incarcerated, and asserting that he is especially vulnerable to the virus because he has type 2 diabetes and other health problems, including high cholesterol, cataracts, and complications from childhood cancer. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction, citing Allen's criminal history, the seriousness of his offense, his obstructive conduct during the investigation, and the circumstances of his only prison disciplinary violation.

We review the district court's denial of compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kincaid, 802 F. App'x 187, 188 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020)).¹ The compassionate release provision permits the district court to reduce a defendant's sentence if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction; that a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and that the § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they apply, support a reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In addition, the district court must find that the defendant “is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.” USSG § 1B1.13(2) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)).

The government does not dispute Allen's eligibility for compassionate release based on the risks posed by Covid-19 and his underlying health conditions. Rather, the issue on appeal is whether the district court acted within its discretion by denying compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors. See Kincaid, 802 F. App'x at 188. We conclude that it did.

The district court recognized that Allen is at heightened risk for complications from Covid-19 based on his medical issues, including diabetes, but concluded that the relevant § 3553(a) factors nonetheless “weigh[ed] heavily” against his release. Specifically, the district court cited the seriousness of Allen's offense, which it described as “a dramatic illustration of why the law prohibits knowingly providing a firearm to a felon”; the statements he made to obstruct the investigation into his sale of the firearm; the “deceptive conduct” underlying his prison disciplinary violation, which involved attempting to use another person's urine to pass a drug test; and the need for deterrence in light of his lengthy criminal history.

The district court did not abuse its “broad discretion to determine what sentence will serve § 3553(a)’s statutory objectives.” United States v. Kincaid, 805 F. App'x 394, 395 (6th Cir. 2020) (alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089, 1093 (6th Cir. 2009)). Allen faults the district court for “ignoring the significance” of several factors, including his risk of complications from Covid-19; his rehabilitation efforts in prison; his strong family support and comprehensive reentry plan; the nonviolent nature of his offense, which he argues was the result of his drug addiction and bad judgment; and the work he has done in prison to address his substance abuse issues. But it was not unreasonable for the district court to take a different view of Allen's history and characteristics and to place greater weight on the seriousness of his underlying offense and his criminal history, which included drug and firearm offenses and probation violations. In a compassionate release proceeding, as at sentencing, the district court “is best situated to balance the § 3553(a) factors.” Kincaid, 802 F. App'x at 189 (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). Allen's disagreement with how the district court conducted this balance “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694; see United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559, 571 (6th Cir. 2013).

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's order denying Allen's motion for compassionate release.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As noted by the government, we have not yet addressed whether 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) limits our authority to review a district court's weighing of the § 3553(a) factors on appeal from the denial of § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, but any such limit is not jurisdictional and has not been invoked as a bar to our review here, so we proceed to the merits. See Kincaid, 802 F. App'x at 188 n.1.