United States v. Aserial Jones
24-11675
| 11th Cir. | Mar 7, 2025Background
- Aserial Jones, a federal prisoner serving a 435-month sentence for armed robbery, filed a pro se motion for compassionate release based on his father's dementia and alleged sentencing disparities.
- Jones also requested appointment of counsel to help gather documentation to support his motion.
- The district court denied both his motion for compassionate release and his motion for appointment of counsel.
- Jones appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in applying the statutory sentencing factors and in denying his request for counsel.
- The appellate court reviewed the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Compassionate Release | Court improperly weighed § 3553(a) factors and ignored evidence | Court acted within discretion; factors weighed properly | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Extraordinary and Compelling Reason | Father's dementia, sentencing disparity qualifies | Facts not sufficient for release under the law | No extraordinary/compelling reason found |
| Denial of Appointed Counsel | Needed counsel to obtain records for motion | Not required by law; Jones capable pro se | No right to counsel, denial affirmed |
| Application of Legal Standards | Court erred in findings inconsistent with data | Followed correct legal standards | District court applied correct standards |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021) (sets abuse of discretion standard for compassionate release motions)
- United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2015) (no inherent authority to modify sentences absent statute or rule)
- United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2009) (no right to counsel in post-conviction matters; discretionary)
- United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234 (11th Cir. 2021) (sets standards for application of § 3553(a) and compassionate release)