24 F.4th 583
6th Cir.2022Background
- Brandon McKinnie is a recidivist drug offender who received a career‑offender enhancement in federal court based on prior convictions for a 2011 crack conspiracy and an attempted trafficking offense, raising his Guidelines range from 60–71 months to 151–188 months.
- After his sentence became final, this Court decided United States v. Havis, holding that attempt offenses do not qualify as "controlled substance offenses" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- McKinnie pursued collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing his career‑offender designation was unlawful post‑Havis; the district court denied relief as the error involved Guidelines calculation not a statutory or constitutional defect.
- McKinnie then moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the Havis error, obesity and hypertension, COVID‑19 risk (he is vaccinated), and rehabilitation; the district court denied relief and, after remand, reaffirmed the denial.
- On appeal, McKinnie argued Havis (and combined personal factors) constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a sentence reduction; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Havis sentencing‑error (non‑retroactive judicial decision) is an “extraordinary and compelling reason” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Havis shows McKinnie's career‑offender enhancement was erroneous and thus warrants release | Havis is a non‑retroactive judicial change and cannot serve as an "extraordinary and compelling" basis to alter a final sentence | Havis error is not an extraordinary and compelling reason; non‑retroactive precedent cannot justify release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (following Hunter) |
| Whether combining Havis with medical conditions, COVID risk, and rehabilitation suffices | The aggregate of Havis plus obesity, hypertension, COVID risk, and good conduct creates extraordinary circumstances | None of those factors is individually extraordinary; vaccination reduces COVID risk; rehabilitation alone is not a qualifying ground; combining insufficient | Combination is insufficient; district court did not err in declining to find extraordinary and compelling reasons |
| Whether non‑retroactive judicial decisions may be considered at all under § 3582 | McKinnie urges the court to treat Havis as a basis for release | Non‑retroactive decisions may at most be considered in weighing § 3553(a) factors, not as standalone extraordinary reasons | Non‑retroactive judicial decisions cannot be the extraordinary and compelling basis for release but may be considered in § 3553(a) analysis per circuit precedent |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying § 3582 relief | Denial was wrongful given new legal development and personal factors | District court applied correct law and made factual findings; no abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; Sixth Circuit affirms denial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (held attempt offenses are not §4B1.1 "controlled substance" predicates)
- United States v. Hunter, 12 F.4th 555 (6th Cir. 2021) (non‑retroactive judicial decisions are not "extraordinary and compelling" reasons under §3582(c)(1)(A))
- United States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747 (6th Cir. 2021) (vaccination availability and preexisting conditions generally do not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons)
- United States v. Tomes, 990 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2021) (First Step Act non‑retroactive changes are not extraordinary and compelling reasons)
- United States v. Jarvis, 999 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2021) (same as Tomes for §924(c) amendments)
- United States v. Owens, 996 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2021) (held rehabilitation plus statutory sentencing disparity might be considered, but later limited by Hunter)
- United States v. McCall, 20 F.4th 1108 (6th Cir. 2021) (panel disagreed with Hunter but is bound to follow Hunter under circuit precedent)
- United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for §3582(c)(1)(A) motions and procedural framework)