United States v. Damien Michael Pierce, 20-14625

In 2011 a federal grand jury indicted Damien Pierce on counts including conspiracy to possess firearms, carjacking, and § 924(c) brandishing/discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (Count 5).
Pierce was convicted at trial and in 2012 received a 288‑month sentence: concurrent 168‑month terms on Counts 1 and 4, plus a 120‑month consecutive term on Count 5.
In 2020 Pierce moved pro se for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing Count 5 improperly charged multiple § 924(c) offenses in one count and that this indictment defect made the consecutive sentence "unjust and excessive."
The district court denied the motion, finding Pierce failed to show an "extraordinary and compelling reason," was not shown to be non‑dangerous, and that the § 3553(a) factors did not support release.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed eligibility de novo and applied its precedent that district courts are bound by the Sentencing Commission’s Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 defining "extraordinary and compelling reasons."
The Eleventh Circuit held an indictment defect does not fall within Application Note 1(A)–(D) and the BOP had not determined such defects constitute "other" reasons; therefore Pierce was ineligible and the district court’s denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an indictment defect (alleged multiplicitous charging in Count 5) is an "extraordinary and compelling reason" under § 3582(c)(1)(A)	Pierce: The defective Count 5 made the consecutive § 924(c) sentence unjust/excessive and thus qualifies as extraordinary and compelling	Gov't: The Sentencing Commission’s Application Note 1 limits "extraordinary and compelling" to health/age/caregiver categories or BOP‑determined "other" reasons; an indictment defect is not covered	Court: Affirmed — indictment defect does not fit Application Note 1(A)–(D); no eligibility for § 3582(c)(1)(A) relief
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying relief after considering § 3553(a) factors	Pierce: (argues relief warranted given alleged injustice)	Gov't: No relief warranted because defendant is ineligible under the Commission’s definition	Court: Not reached on the merits—because Pierce was ineligible, the court had no authority to reduce the sentence and therefore need not resolve § 3553(a) adequacy

United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) (district courts bound by the Sentencing Commission’s Application Note definition of "extraordinary and compelling reasons")
States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 2021) (vacating/remanding when government conceded an extraordinary and compelling reason and the district court didn’t show it considered § 3553(a) factors)