We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

I NEVER SAID THAT

Ever feel like the court was reading something other than your motion when it denied you relief?

Robin Sims filed for compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that COVID had wrecked his health and the Federal Bureau of Prisons was not giving him adequate care. The government agreed that at least one of Robin’s chronic medical conditions was an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for a compassionate release, but it opposed Robin’s motion because the 18 USC § 3553(a) sentencing factors failed to support letting Robin out at this time.

The district court, however, released an opinion smacking of alternate reality. It first held that Robin’s argument for release “due to the increased risk of contracting COVID and changes in the law arguments [did] not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction.” The court also noted the government’s opposition claim that there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting compassionate release. Finally, the district court concluded, the § 3553(a) factors weighed against grant. The court denied the compassionate release on those bases.

Last week the 9th Circuit reversed the district court denial, holding that “the government and the district court misread Sims’s pro se motion.”

The district court and government were unforgivably sloppy. First, the government summarized Robin’s argument as being that “extraordinary and compelling reasons exist because the coronavirus (COVID-19) places him at risk if he remains in the custody of BOP.”

Robin never said that. Rather, he argued that he was experiencing ongoing medical complications because of the COVID he had had. He challenged the adequacy of the BOP medical care. Robin relied on these reasons, in addition to intervening changes in the law, to show extraordinary and compelling reasons in support of a reduced sentence.

The 9th also ruled that the district court’s order misstated the government’s position by mistakenly saying that the government opposed Robin’s motion because he had failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons.  The government had said just the opposite.

Doesn’t matter, the government told the 9th Circuit. The district court errors were harmless, the government contended, because the judge had also found that the § 3553(a) factors disfavored Robin’s motion. The Circuit disagreed. “[M]otions for compassionate release require an individualized inquiry,” the Circuit held, and “here, we see no indication that the district court considered Sims’s argument that his health and medical care needs were ‘extraordinary and compelling,’ or that it reviewed the medical records [he] submitted in support of his motion.

The case now goes back to the district court to consider the 18 USC § 3553 factors in light of the extraordinary and compelling reasons Robin had shown.

United States v. Sims, Case No 22-3430, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 32310 (8th Cir., December 7, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root