United States v. David Long
997 F.3d 342
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- David Long, a double amputee with serious medical conditions, is serving a 29‑year sentence for RICO and related violent offenses; he sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) citing COVID‑19 vulnerability.
- The First Step Act (2018) permits defendants to move for compassionate release after exhausting BOP remedies; courts must consider § 3553(a) factors and any "applicable policy statements" of the Sentencing Commission.
- The Sentencing Commission’s pre‑First Step Act policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, by its terms applies only to motions "upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons" and conditions relief on finding the defendant "not a danger."
- The district court assumed Long’s health conditions were "extraordinary and compelling" but denied release because it believed § 1B1.13(2) mandated denial unless Long were found non‑dangerous.
- The D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that § 1B1.13 is not an "applicable policy statement" for defendant‑filed compassionate‑release motions and that the district court’s reliance on it was plain error requiring reconsideration under the correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Long) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is an "applicable policy statement" for defendant‑filed compassionate‑release motions | § 1B1.13 predates the First Step Act and by its text applies only to BOP‑filed motions, so it is not applicable to defendant motions | § 1B1.13 should continue to govern compassionate release generally (including defendant motions) and its dangerousness bar remains controlling | § 1B1.13 is not applicable to defendant‑filed motions; courts are not bound by its categorical dangerousness prerequisite |
| Appellate jurisdiction over denial of compassionate release (28 U.S.C. § 1291 v. 18 U.S.C. § 3742) | Appeal is permissible as an appeal of a sentence‑modification ruling under § 1291 (or, alternatively, falls within § 3742 grounds) | (Implicit) jurisdiction is limited by § 3742 and appeals may be constrained | Court exercised jurisdiction under § 1291; § 3742 does not bar appeals of sentence‑modification denials like this one |
| Standard of review for denial and unpreserved argument | Challenge to applicability of § 1B1.13 may be considered; denial should be reviewed for plain error because Long did not raise the point below | The district court properly applied § 1B1.13; plain error review not warranted or Gov't invited the error | Abuse of discretion governs § 3582(c)(1)(A) denials; Long’s unpreserved statutory argument is reviewed for plain error (invited‑error doctrine did not apply) |
| Whether the district court’s reliance on § 1B1.13 affected substantial rights and warrants reversal/remand | Reliance on the inapplicable, binding‑seeming policy statement prevented proper § 3553(a) balancing and likely affected outcome | Even without § 1B1.13, the court would have denied release after assessing dangerousness under § 3553(a) | Error was plain, prejudicial (affected substantial rights), and seriously affected fairness; vacatur and remand required for proper § 3553(a) consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (held § 1B1.13 inapplicable to defendant‑filed compassionate‑release motions)
- United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (same holding; analyzed § 1B1.13 text and First Step Act)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (explained how guideline errors ordinarily show prejudice under plain‑error review)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (distinguished sentence‑modification proceedings from resentencing; relevant to jurisdictional analysis)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims in criminal cases)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Sentencing Commission commentary is authoritative unless inconsistent with the Guidelines)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (explained advisory role of the Guidelines and sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Jones, 846 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (discussed appealability and § 1291 as basis for review)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (addressed correction of plain sentencing errors to protect fairness and integrity)