United States v. Jason Jarvis
999 F.3d 442
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Jason Jarvis was convicted in 1994 of multiple bank robberies, conspiracy, and five § 924(c) firearm counts; initial aggregate sentence was 96 years driven largely by consecutive § 924(c) mandatory minima.
- After Rosemond v. United States clarified the intent element for aiding-and-abetting § 924(c), three § 924(c) counts were vacated and Jarvis was resentenced to 40 years.
- The First Step Act (2018) amended § 924(c) to narrow what counts as repeat § 924(c) offenses; Congress made that amendment non-retroactive for defendants already sentenced.
- Jarvis moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing COVID-19, hypertension, rehabilitation, and the First Step Act sentencing disparity (arguing he would be entitled to a 25-year sentence today).
- The district court denied relief, holding that the First Step Act’s non-retroactive amendment cannot, as a matter of law, constitute an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for release; the Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, relying on United States v. Tomes.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-retroactive First Step Act amendment to § 924(c) can constitute an "extraordinary and compelling reason" under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) | Jarvis: the sentencing-disparity created by § 403 of the First Step Act is extraordinary and compelling | Government: allowing that would subvert Congress's explicit non-retroactivity choice | No; non-retroactive First Step Act amendments cannot be treated as extraordinary and compelling (Tomes controls) |
| Whether combining the non-retroactive amendment with COVID, hypertension, and rehabilitation suffices | Jarvis: the amendment plus his health and rehab collectively meet the standard | Government: unlawful ground + insufficient other factors still fail threshold | No; adding the impermissible non-retroactive ground to other insufficient factual factors does not justify release |
| Whether the district court erred by relying on the Sentencing Commission policy statement §1B1.13 | Jarvis: court treated the statement as mandatory | Government: court only used §1B1.13 for guidance and applied statutory text | No error; district court permissibly consulted §1B1.13 for guidance but correctly based its ruling on statutory texts |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (clarified "advance knowledge" requirement for aiding-and-abetting liability under § 924(c))
- United States v. Tomes, 990 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2021) (non-retroactive First Step Act amendments cannot serve as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" under § 3582(c)(1)(A))
- United States v. Maxwell, 991 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2021) (district courts may consider intervening legal changes when weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Richardson, 948 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2020) (interpretation of First Step Act amendments to § 924(c))
- United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act § 924(c) disparity may be considered as extraordinary and compelling in individualized assessments)
- United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021) (non-retroactive First Step Act amendments may count toward extraordinary and compelling reasons when combined with unique circumstances)
- United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2021) (statutorily required sentences are generally not "extraordinary and compelling" to reduce)
- United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021) (district courts have discretion to define "extraordinary and compelling" without rigid reliance on §1B1.13)
- United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (affirmance principles when multiple bases are offered for compassionate release denial)
- United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles constraining judicial workaround of congressional text)
- Jones v. United States, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (district courts not bound to the Sentencing Commission’s §1B1.13 when deciding compassionate-release motions)
- Salmi v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685 (6th Cir. 1985) (published panel precedent binds later panels absent en banc or Supreme Court reversal)