516 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2021Background
- In 1971 Greene disarmed three U.S. Marshals during a funeral furlough, aided his half-brother’s escape, and fatally shot a marshal; he was tried in federal court on both D.C. Code and federal charges.
- On direct appeal the D.C. Circuit vacated Greene’s federal convictions but affirmed his D.C. Code convictions; his aggregate sentence became 35 years to life and he has served ~49 years.
- Greene, now 72, has multiple age-related medical conditions and extensive evidence of rehabilitation in custody (educational programming, work at UNICOR, and credited actions during a 1989 prison riot).
- Greene sought compassionate release in federal court invoking D.C. Code § 24-403.04; the Parole Commission repeatedly denied parole and the U.S. Marshals Service opposed release, while numerous BOP staff supported him.
- The district court construed the filing as a motion under the federal compassionate release statute (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)); it waived administrative exhaustion as futile, found "extraordinary and compelling" reasons (age, 49 years served, deteriorating health), concluded § 3553(a) does not require continued incarceration, and granted release to time served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greene) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which law governs compassionate release for a D.C. Code offender sentenced in federal court (D.C. Code § 24-403.04 vs 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)) | Apply D.C. statute (more favorable eligibility criteria) | Federal statute inapplicable to D.C. Code offenders; D.C. statute governs | Federal law (§ 3582(c)(1)(A)) controls; federal courts may only modify federal sentences under congressional statutes |
| Administrative exhaustion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Not required if Court applies D.C. statute; otherwise excuse exhaustion due to futility | Greene failed to exhaust BOP remedies and should be barred | Exhaustion excused as futile because BOP policy precluded filing for D.C. Code offenders and would likely deny motion |
| Whether "extraordinary and compelling" reasons exist | Age (72), 49 years served, and age-related medical deterioration warrant release | Medical conditions not severe enough (BOP care level 1); offense severity weighs against relief | Court: Greene meets Sentencing Commission criteria (age + serious deterioration); extraordinary and compelling reasons found |
| Whether § 3553(a) purposes and public safety require continued incarceration | Long incarceration, rehabilitation, low PATTERN risk, and BOP staff support show release is consistent with § 3553(a) | Offense was egregious; Parole Commission and Marshals oppose release; disciplinary infractions undermine safety claim | Court: § 3553(a) does not require continued incarceration; release to time served granted (Parole Commission/Marshals’ views considered but not dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (federal courts generally cannot modify an imposed sentence except as authorized by statute)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (Congress controls federal-court jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (limits on federal-court power to expand jurisdiction)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes sentence reduction only in narrow statutory circumstances)
- United States v. Greene, 834 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (appellate disposition of Greene’s convictions)
- United States v. Greene, 489 F.2d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (opinion describing the underlying offense facts)
- United States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (federal court may retain jurisdiction over properly joined D.C. Code offenses after federal counts resolved)
- United States v. Cutchin, 956 F.2d 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (federal courts must apply substantive law of D.C. Code when adjudicating D.C. offenses)
- Belt v. United States, 514 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (federal evidentiary and procedural rules apply when trying joined federal and D.C. Code offenses)
- United States v. Brown, 483 F.2d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (federal forum's procedural rules apply to local offenses tried in federal court)
- Johnson v. United States, 464 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2020) (discussion of § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion, "extraordinary and compelling" standard, and § 3553(a) analysis)
- Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America v. Weinberger, 795 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (futility excusing administrative exhaustion when agency will almost certainly deny relief)