United States v. Cargo
21-395-cr
| 2d Cir. | Jan 27, 2022Background
- Lateek Cargo pleaded guilty to arson and conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin; his criminal history put him in the highest Guidelines category with a Guidelines range of 324–405 months.
- The parties entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement capping the sentence at 144 months; the district court imposed 118 months and ordered restitution for the arson damage.
- After serving ~36 months, Cargo moved for compassionate release under the First Step Act (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)), seeking a sentence reduction.
- The district court denied the motion without prejudice, explicitly deciding that the § 3553(a) factors did not support release and therefore declining to resolve whether extraordinary and compelling reasons existed.
- The court emphasized Cargo’s rehabilitation and family hardships but found they were outweighed by the seriousness of the arson (which endangered tenants), long-running drug trafficking involving large quantities, and frequent firearms use.
- Cargo appealed; the Second Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cargo's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by declining to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for release | Cargo argued his rehabilitation, employment history, and family hardship constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons | Government argued even if such reasons existed, § 3553(a) factors would still bar release | Court: No error requiring reversal; district court permissibly relied on § 3553(a) factors and need not decide extraordinary and compelling reasons |
| Whether the § 3553(a) factors supported compassionate release | Cargo argued the court should weigh rehabilitation and family impact to reduce his sentence | Government argued the gravity of Cargo’s offenses and criminal history outweigh rehabilitation and family factors | Court: § 3553(a) factors weigh against release given arson risks, serious drug and firearms conduct, and extensive criminal history |
| Whether the district court failed to consider Cargo’s rehabilitation and family hardship | Cargo contended the court overlooked or minimized these mitigating factors | Government contended the court considered them but found them insufficient | Court: District court considered rehabilitation and family hardship but reasonably found them outweighed by offense seriousness |
| Whether comparative district-court grants of compassionate release required a different result | Cargo pointed to other district-court grants as persuasive parallels | Government distinguished those grants (longer served sentences, no below-Guidelines initial sentence) | Court: Other decisions are distinguishable; no basis to overturn the discretionary decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Keitt, 21 F.4th 67 (2d Cir. 2021) (district court need not decide extraordinary and compelling reasons when § 3553(a) factors independently bar relief)
- Saladino, 7 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2021) (standard of review for compassionate-release denials)
- Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Sims, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (clarifying abuse-of-discretion review contours)
- Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to district courts on sentencing decisions)
- Seshan, [citation="850 F. App'x 800"] (2d Cir.) (applying deference to district courts’ § 3553(a) balancing in compassionate-release context)