United States v. Allen Parham
20-13355
| 11th Cir. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Parham pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and was sentenced in 2015 to 78 months’ imprisonment; he later received an additional consecutive 21-month sentence for failing to surrender.
- In June 2020 Parham (pro se) moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing COVID-19 and underlying conditions (hypertension, heart disease).
- The district court accepted that Parham’s medical conditions increased his COVID-19 risk and thus could constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons."
- The court nonetheless denied relief after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors: seriousness of the offense (multiple victims, >$550,000 loss), extensive criminal history (Category VI), commission of offenses while on supervision, and the need for deterrence and just punishment.
- The district court also found Parham would be a danger to the community under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and that release would be inconsistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, concluded the district court applied the correct legal standards and did not clearly err, and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard for compassionate release | Parham argued the court erred in applying the wrong standard and undervalued his medical risk and rehabilitation | Government argued the court applied the correct statutory and Guideline standards and considered §3553(a) factors | Court held the district court applied the correct legal standard and procedures (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether Parham’s COVID-19 risk and medical conditions constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" | Parham argued his hypertension and heart disease, plus pandemic, are extraordinary and warrant release | Government contested sufficiency for release when balanced with other factors | Court accepted the conditions could be "extraordinary and compelling," but that alone did not require release |
| Whether the §3553(a) factors support a sentence reduction | Parham emphasized post-sentencing rehabilitation and mitigation | Government emphasized offense seriousness, loss amount, many victims, and Parham’s extensive criminal history | Court held §3553(a) factors weighed against release; denial was reasonable |
| Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Parham posed a danger to the community | Parham argued his rehabilitation and medical risk reduce dangerousness | Government pointed to prior convictions (family violence, drug offenses, distribution, offenses while on supervision) and failure to surrender | Court held the dangerousness finding was not clearly erroneous and supported denial (consistent with U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 and §3142(g)) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021) (standard of appellate review for compassionate-release decisions)
- United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2015) (court lacks inherent authority to modify a sentence absent statutory authorization)
- United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court discretion in weighing sentencing factors)
- United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485 (11th Cir. 1988) (broad construction of "safety of any other person and the community" under §3142)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (liberal reading of pro se filings)