United States v. Jamille Barksdale
21-2257
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 1, 2021Background
- In 2010 Barksdale pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and five counts of distribution; sentenced as a career offender to 180 months (a downward variance from a Guidelines life range).
- In December 2020 he moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing thyroid cancer, hypertension, and a COVID-19 infection after exposure in custody.
- The District Court concluded the medical record did not support cancer or hypertension, found his diagnosis was hyperthyroidism (not shown to increase COVID risk), and noted he had recovered from COVID without apparent consequences.
- The District Court also found Barksdale posed a danger and that the § 3553(a) factors (serious offenses, violent history, and the substantial downward variance already granted) weighed against release.
- Barksdale moved for reconsideration (Rule 59(e)), and for the first time argued under United States v. Nasir that he no longer qualifies as a career offender; the District Court declined to consider that claim on reconsideration (stating it belongs in a § 2255 motion).
- The Third Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and summarily affirmed the denial of compassionate release and the denial of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Barksdale: thyroid cancer, hypertension, and COVID infection create high risk from COVID | Gov./DC: medical records do not show cancer/hypertension; hyperthyroidism not shown to increase COVID risk; he recovered from COVID | No extraordinary and compelling reasons; denial affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether § 3553(a) factors favor release given rehabilitation and time served | Barksdale: rehabilitation and having served most of sentence (155 of 180 months) supports release | Gov./DC: serious offense/violent history and need for punishment, deterrence, and public protection; sentence already a large downward variance | § 3553(a) factors weigh against release; denial affirmed |
| Whether Nasir-based claim that he is not a career offender can be raised on reconsideration | Barksdale: Nasir means conspiracy is not a controlled-substance predicate, so career-offender status may be invalid | Gov./DC: new sentencing claim not appropriate on Rule 59(e); should be raised in § 2255 | District Court properly declined to entertain on reconsideration; issue must be raised in § 2255 posture |
| Whether denial of reconsideration (including counsel-abandonment claim) was an abuse of discretion | Barksdale: motion raised new arguments and counsel abandoned him | Gov./DC: most arguments were repetitive; new claims improper; record does not show abandonment warranting relief | Denial of reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir.) (standards for review of compassionate-release denials)
- United States v. Kalb, 891 F.3d 455 (3d Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of reconsideration)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir.) (standards for Rule 59(e) motions)
- United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir.) (consideration of prior downward variances in compassionate-release analysis)
- United States v. Nasir, 982 F.3d 144 (3d Cir.) (holding that inchoate offenses like conspiracy may not qualify as controlled-substance offenses for career-offender enhancement)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.) (appeal timeliness and scope principles)