Background
Glafiro Gonzalez appealed pro se from a district court order denying his third motion for compassionate release. He argued he was entitled to release because he was serving an unusually long sentence after a change in law lowered the applicable mandatory minimum. He also argued the Bureau of Prisons unfairly refused to retroactively designate a state prison as his place of confinement, which extended his federal sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The court found the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that neither circumstance was extraordinary and compelling. The district court previously rejected the argument that a change in sentencing law justified release, and the appellate court agreed that Gonzalez failed to demonstrate the gross disparity in his sentence necessary to satisfy Section one point one B one three subsection b six. Additionally, the court held that the Bureau of Prisons’ decision regarding his place of confinement is committed to its discretion under Section thirty-six twenty-one subsection b and is not a basis for compassionate release. The court did not reach issues raised for the first time on appeal.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that changes in sentencing laws and Bureau of Prisons placement decisions alone do not automatically satisfy the extraordinary and compelling circumstances standard for compassionate release.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download