United States v. Dwayne Ferguson
55 F.4th 262
4th Cir.2022Background
- Dwayne Ferguson, serving a federal sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses, requested compassionate release from his prison warden in May 2020 citing asthma and high blood pressure (COVID-19 risk); the warden denied the request.
- Ferguson filed a § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate-release motion in district court; he raised both medical grounds and non-medical claims attacking the validity of his convictions and the mandatory 30-year § 924(c) sentence (e.g., indictment did not allege a silencer; jury instruction and counsel errors).
- The district court held Ferguson failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his non-medical claims and treated those claims as improper collateral attacks on his conviction/sentence, denying relief.
- Ferguson appealed; the Fourth Circuit considered (1) its appellate jurisdiction over denials of § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions and (2) whether issue exhaustion or collateral-attack rules bar using compassionate release to challenge convictions/sentences.
- The Fourth Circuit held it has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, ruled that § 3582(c)(1)(A) does not require issue exhaustion beyond the inmate’s initial request (or 30-day lapse), but held a compassionate-release motion cannot be used to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction or sentence (those claims belong in § 2255).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction to review denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion | Fourth Circuit review is proper under § 1291 | § 3742(a) might be the relevant source (or otherwise limited) | Court: § 1291 supplies appellate jurisdiction to review denials and grants of compassionate-release motions |
| Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires issue exhaustion (must raise same grounds to BOP before court) | Ferguson: No issue exhaustion required beyond initial request/30-day lapse | Government: administrative exhaustion principles (PLRA-style) should apply | Court: No issue exhaustion required; inmate need only make initial request and then may file in district court after exhaustion or 30 days |
| Whether compassionate release may be used to challenge the validity of conviction or sentence | Ferguson: Non-medical claims (e.g., sentencing error re: silencer, counsel failures) justify reduction | Government: Such challenges are collateral attacks and must proceed under § 2255 (or § 2241 if § 2255 is inadequate) | Court: A compassionate-release motion cannot be used to collaterally attack conviction/sentence; those claims must be brought under § 2255; denial affirmed |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying compassionate release | Ferguson: District court improperly refused to consider his non-medical arguments | Government: District court properly rejected collateral-attack claims and denied relief | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (district courts may consider any extraordinary and compelling reasons when defendant—not BOP—files)
- Muhammad v. United States, 16 F.4th 126 (4th Cir. 2021) (statutory threshold/satisfaction of § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion is satisfied by initial request or 30-day lapse)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c) governs modification of an existing sentence, not resentencing)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (substance controls; filings that vindicate collateral claims are subject to habeas rules)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (caution against judicially imposing issue-exhaustion in non-adversarial administrative proceedings)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion)
- United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (motions that attack conviction/sentence are substantively successive habeas applications)
- United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2021) (standard of review—abuse of discretion—for denial of compassionate release)