History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Cooper
996 F.3d 283
| 5th Cir. | 2021
Read the full case

Background

  • Fred Joseph Cooper was convicted in 2010 of drug-trafficking and multiple § 924(c) firearms offenses and (after a later reduction) is serving a 40‑year sentence.
  • In April 2020, after exhausting administrative remedies, Cooper moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing COVID‑19 risk factors (diabetes, obesity, hypertension) and the First Step Act’s changes to § 924(c) that would substantially lower the mandatory consecutive terms if applied today.
  • The district court denied the motion without prejudice, finding Cooper had served only ~11 years, his medical records did not show severe limitations, the institution had relatively few COVID cases, and there was unsettled law about whether the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13) bound courts considering prisoner‑filed compassionate‑release motions.
  • The district court invited Cooper to renew the motion if the Fifth Circuit or the Sentencing Commission clarified the scope of judicial discretion under the First Step Act.
  • The Fifth Circuit, noting its then‑recent decision clarifying that § 1B1.13 does not bind district courts considering prisoner motions (see Shkambi), vacated and remanded so the district court can reconsider whether the nonretroactive § 924(c) changes and/or Cooper’s medical risks constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” and then apply the § 3553(a) factors.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is an "applicable policy statement" that binds district courts considering prisoner‑filed § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions § 1B1.13 should not bind; courts may independently define "extraordinary and compelling" § 1B1.13 applies and limits courts to the Commission's listed categories The court held § 1B1.13 is not binding on district courts for prisoner‑filed motions (per Shkambi); remanded for reconsideration
Whether nonretroactive First Step Act changes to § 924(c) can constitute an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for release Cooper: the sentencing‑law change meaningfully reduces the sentence he would receive today and thus can be considered Government: district court reasonably declined to consider such nonretroactive changes; even if relevant, § 3553(a) factors counsel against release Court did not decide the merits; remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether those changes (alone or with other factors) are "extraordinary and compelling"
Whether the district court permissibly relied on § 3553(a) and time served to deny relief Cooper: district court prematurely denied relief without resolving whether extraordinary reasons existed Government: district court properly exercised discretion under § 3553(a) given time remaining Court found district court relied on its mistaken view that § 1B1.13 was binding, so remand required to allow proper § 3553(a) analysis after reconsideration

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard of review and background on compassionate release procedure)
  • United States v. Cooper, 714 F.3d 873 (5th Cir. 2013) (affirming Cooper’s original convictions and sentence)
  • Thompson v. United States, 984 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for § 3582(c)(1)(A) denials)
  • Brooker v. United States, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding § 1B1.13 not binding for prisoner motions)
  • Jones v. United States, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (same)
  • Gunn v. United States, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (same)
  • McCoy v. United States, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (same)
  • Ruffin v. United States, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing cases where courts alternatively relied on § 3553(a))
  • Pawlowski v. United States, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (affirming denial where movant had served little of sentence)
  • Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 757 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2014) (remand required when district court misapprehends the law)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Cooper
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date Published: Apr 28, 2021
Citation: 996 F.3d 283
Docket Number: 20-20485
Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.