United States v. Hernandez Daniel
21-6316
| 4th Cir. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- In 2008 Daniel pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base and was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment to run consecutively to any state sentence.
- In 2019 he moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act; in 2020 he moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) citing COVID-19 risks.
- The district court denied both motions on the same day; Daniel appealed both denials.
- The Fourth Circuit found Daniel ineligible for a First Step Act reduction under the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Terry and affirmed that denial.
- As to compassionate release, the district court concluded Daniel had not shown he was particularly susceptible to severe COVID-19 illness and that the § 3553(a) factors (including deterrence and public protection) weighed against release; the court had considered his postsentencing conduct.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of compassionate release, reviewing for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for First Step Act sentence reduction | Daniel sought retroactive relief under the First Step Act | The government argued he is ineligible under the controlling Supreme Court interpretation | Terry makes Daniel ineligible; motion denied and affirmed on appeal |
| Compassionate release based on COVID-19 risk | Daniel argued a particularized risk of COVID-19 infection at his institution warrants release | Court/Govt: Daniel is not particularly susceptible to severe illness; even if extraordinary reasons existed, § 3553(a) factors and public safety weigh against release; district court considered postsentencing conduct | No extraordinary and compelling reason shown; district court did not abuse its discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing compassionate-release denials)
- United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2021) (district court’s consideration of sentencing factors generally suffices even if it does not explicitly address every argument, including postsentencing conduct)