United States v. Horace Cook
998 F.3d 1180
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Horace Cook, a federal inmate with hypertension, obesity, and latent tuberculosis, is serving federal and consecutive state sentences after multiple 2012 robberies; federal sentence was 151 months.
- On August 6, 2020 Cook moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), asking for time served.
- He cited three "extraordinary and compelling" reasons: COVID-19 risk in prisons, his medical conditions (obesity, hypertension, latent TB), and that intervening law would likely eliminate his career-offender enhancement, producing an unwarranted sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
- The district court summarily denied the motion in a brief order stating Cook’s age and ailments were not extraordinary and compelling; the order did not mention COVID-19 or explain consideration of § 3553(a) factors.
- The Government argued the record supported denial and that appellate courts can affirm on any recorded ground; it also contended the judge’s familiarity with the case and the phrase "fully advised" sufficed to show consideration.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the district court’s order did not show it considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors and therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion by denying compassionate release without demonstrating consideration of applicable § 3553(a) factors | Cook: district court failed to consider and weigh applicable § 3553(a) factors when denying relief | Govt: the record supports denial; appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record | Vacated and remanded — court abused discretion because the record does not show § 3553(a) factors were considered |
| Whether Cook’s COVID-19 risk and medical conditions qualify as "extraordinary and compelling" reasons | Cook: COVID-19 + obesity, hypertension, latent TB constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons | Govt: concedes obesity may be extraordinary but contends § 3553(a) factors counsel against release | Court did not decide the merits; district court didn’t address COVID-19 or medical risk in its order, so record is insufficient |
| Whether an appellate court may affirm on alternative grounds not relied on by the district court | Cook: appellate review requires the district court’s own weighing; appeals court should not supply missing analysis | Govt: appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record | Court rejected wholesale affirmance on unarticulated grounds here because compassionate-release decisions involve discretionary balancing that must be shown in the district court’s record |
| Whether boilerplate language (e.g., "fully advised") or judge’s familiarity with the case suffices to show consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Cook: boilerplate and familiarity do not substitute for an explanation showing consideration | Govt: familiarity and prior involvement (Eggersdorf) support that factors were considered | Boilerplate and mere familiarity are insufficient without record evidence that § 3553(a) factors were taken into account |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion review for § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) decisions)
- United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009) (statutory requirement to consider § 3553(a) factors in sentence-reduction contexts)
- United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2017) (district court must adequately explain sentencing decisions to permit meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (appellate court role and necessity of sufficient explanation for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (deference to district court sentencing discretion but recognition that mistakes occur)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (discussing district court advantages in sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (vacatur required when record does not show § 3553(a) factors were considered)
- United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1997) (record can demonstrate consideration of § 3553(a) where judge references specific materials showing factors were addressed)
- United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2013) (de novo review applied to certain legal questions, distinguishing them from discretionary sentencing determinations)