Topic
Every decision we've filed under Compassionate Release.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Paul E. Senat's appeal from the denial of his compassionate release motion because his notice of appeal was filed more than a year after the district court's order. The court held that the filing exceeded the strict 14-day deadline under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not qualify for an extension of time.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Fritz Lafontante's motion for compassionate release, ruling that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against early release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prioritizing the seriousness of Lafontante's drug trafficking offense and the need for public safety over his medical conditions.
The Fourth Circuit denied Antonio Edwards's petition for a writ of mandamus because the district court had already ruled on his underlying motions. The court found the issue moot since the alleged delay no longer existed.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed the portion of Kenneth Roshaun Reid's appeal that challenged the validity of his convictions because it functioned as an unauthorized successive habeas petition. The court affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 826, finding no reversible error in the lower court's handling of the statutory sentencing issue.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of a sentence reduction for a defendant whose criminal history category was lowered by a Sentencing Guidelines amendment. The court held that a statutory mandatory minimum sentence prevented any further reduction of the term already being served.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Alvis Damon Williams's third motion for compassionate release and his request for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that Williams failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that statutory mandatory minimums precluded a sentence reduction.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a sentence reduction motion under Section thirty-five eighty-two, subsection C, paragraph two. The court held that Amendment eight hundred twenty-one to the Sentencing Guidelines does not authorize reducing a sentence imposed for a supervised release revocation.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Michael Jerome Orr's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision to deny relief after weighing the statutory sentencing factors, even though it previously acknowledged Orr met the threshold for extraordinary and compelling reasons.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Douglas Lee Barlow's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's weighing of sentencing factors. The court further held that defendants seeking sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a defendant's motion for compassionate release, ruling that the district court's reliance on sentencing factors was sufficient to deny relief. The court held that any potential error regarding the defendant's extraordinary and compelling circumstances was harmless because the sentence reduction would not reflect the seriousness of the offense.