United States v. Edwin Pawlowski
967 F.3d 327
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- Edwin Pawlowski, former mayor of Allentown, was convicted of multiple federal offenses (bribery, extortion, fraud, conspiracy) and sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment (within the Guidelines range).
- Pawlowski’s merits appeal of his conviction and sentence was pending before this Court; he had served about 19 months when he moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
- He argued his serious medical conditions (hypertensive heart disease, COPD, dyspnea, sleep apnea, single-lung status after pulmonectomy) placed him at heightened risk of severe COVID-19, and noted a substantial outbreak at FCI Danbury.
- The Government did not dispute that his health and the COVID-19 outbreak could constitute “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release.
- The District Court denied compassionate release after weighing the § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses, need for punishment, respect for law, and deterrence given the large unserved portion of the sentence.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, reviewing the § 3553(a) analysis for abuse of discretion and concluding the District Court did not commit clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Pawlowski's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pawlowski’s medical condition and the COVID-19 outbreak constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release | His severe respiratory conditions and single-lung status amid an FCI Danbury outbreak justify compassionate release | The Government did not contest that the conditions could be extraordinary and compelling for purposes of this appeal | Court accepted these conditions as potentially extraordinary and compelling (Government conceded this point) |
| Whether the § 3553(a) factors support compassionate release given Pawlowski had served ~19 months of a 180-month sentence | Release to time served is warranted despite time remaining because of health risk and alleged sentencing excess | § 3553(a) factors (seriousness, punishment, deterrence, respect for law) weigh strongly against release given most of sentence remains | Court affirmed denial: district court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors and denied release |
| Whether considering the amount of time remaining in the sentence is a permissible basis to deny compassionate release | Argued original sentence was excessive, so remaining time should not bar relief | District courts may consider length of time remaining when weighing § 3553(a) factors | Court held it was not an abuse of discretion to deny release based on the large unserved sentence |
| Whether the district court had authority to rule on compassionate release while the merits appeal was pending | Sought relief from district court despite ongoing appeal | District court’s authority was limited but could deny motion; appellate jurisdiction lies under § 1291 to review denials | Court noted jurisdictional limits but exercised appellate review and affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of compassionate-release § 3553(a) determinations)
- Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2000) (explains clear-error-standard language used for abuse-of-discretion review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (notice-of-appeal divests district court of jurisdiction over matters involved in appeal)