United States v. Akers
21-3081
| 10th Cir. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- Montgomery Carl Akers, convicted of wire fraud in 2006, sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); the district court denied relief and denied release pending appeal.
- The district court evaluated Akers’s request for release pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) (Bail Reform Act) and found he failed to show a substantial question likely to result in reversal or a reduced sentence.
- Akers argued on appeal that the district court: (1) erred in concluding he had not exhausted administrative remedies; (2) erred in finding his health conditions did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for release; and (3) failed to address applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
- The district court also imposed a $40,000 monetary sanction against Akers based on portions of his motion it deemed frivolous.
- The appellate panel affirmed the denial of release pending appeal, holding that under either § 3143(b) or the standards applicable to post-conviction release requests Akers failed to show entitlement to release; but the panel remanded the $40,000 sanction for reconsideration because the district court did not find the motion as a whole frivolous.
- The court granted Akers leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees and submitted the case without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability/standard for release pending appeal | Akers: District court misapplied standards and he met criteria for release under § 3143(b) | Government: Bail Reform Act does not apply to post‑conviction relief; in any event Akers fails to meet release standards | Court: Declined to definitively resolve applicability but held that under either § 3143(b) or post‑conviction standards Akers failed to show entitlement to release |
| Exhaustion and extraordinary/compelling reasons for compassionate release | Akers: He exhausted administrative remedies and his medical conditions are extraordinary and compelling | Government: He did not satisfy exhaustion and his conditions do not justify release | Court: Affirmed denial of release—Akers did not demonstrate entitlement on these grounds |
| Consideration of § 3553(a) sentencing factors | Akers: District court failed to address § 3553(a) as required | Government: Either considered or lack of discussion does not warrant release here | Court: No relief granted; denial affirmed (no reversal for failure to address § 3553(a)) |
| $40,000 monetary sanction | Akers: Sanction improper because motion not wholly frivolous | Government: Certain statements in motion were frivolous and justify sanction | Court: Remanded to district court to revisit the sanction because the court identified only parts of the motion as frivolous and did not find the entire motion frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689 (10th Cir. 1981) (state prisoners seeking release pending habeas must show exceptional circumstances or a clear case on the merits)
- United States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 1994) (Bail Reform Act does not apply to federal prisoners seeking postconviction relief; release pending appeal of § 2255 requires extraordinary case or special circumstances)