United States v. Keitt
21 F.4th 67
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background
- Jayvon Keitt pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy (28+ grams crack) after an initial complaint alleging larger quantities; statutory mandatory minimum was 60 months though Guidelines range was 70–87 months.
- District Court sentenced Keitt to 60 months (a below-Guidelines variance) in August 2020, citing his youth, difficult upbringing, asthma, gallbladder infection, and COVID-19 conditions.
- Keitt requested compassionate release from the BOP on August 9, 2020, and filed a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion in district court on December 2, 2020, citing asthma and COVID-19 risks and reduced access to rehabilitative programs.
- The district court acknowledged Keitt’s health risks but denied relief on December 17, 2020, relying solely on the § 3553(a) factors (seriousness of offense, community harm, statutory mandatory minimum and risk of unwarranted sentencing disparities).
- Keitt appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) not finding his asthma/COVID risks to be extraordinary and compelling and (2) failing to consider certain § 3553(a) factors and the specific confinement conditions at his designated facility.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that a district court that denies compassionate release based solely on § 3553(a) factors need not also decide whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist.
Issues
| Issue | Keitt's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court must determine whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" exist when it denies a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion solely on § 3553(a) grounds | The court should have evaluated whether his asthma/COVID risk constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons before denying relief | A court may deny relief if any prerequisite for compassionate release is lacking and need not address the others | The court held it is not required to decide extraordinary and compelling reasons when it properly denies relief based solely on § 3553(a) factors (affirmed) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Keitt’s compassionate-release motion given his asthma, COVID-19, and BOP lockdowns | Keitt: asthma and pandemic-related program suspension create extraordinary and compelling circumstances and the court failed to consider conditions at his designated prison | Government: district court considered his health and pandemic conditions and permissibly concluded § 3553(a) factors weighed against release | The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion; it recognized Keitt’s health risks, had considered COVID impacts at sentencing, and permissibly relied on § 3553(a) factors to deny relief (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371 (2d Cir. 2021) (extraordinary and compelling reasons are necessary but not sufficient for compassionate release)
- United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (courts may consider the full slate of extraordinary and compelling reasons; Sentencing Commission policy statement not binding for inmate-filed motions)
- United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2021) (exhaustion requirement may be waived or forfeited by the government)
- United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020) (district courts need not address every argument or recite every § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (weight afforded § 3553(a) factors is committed to sentencing court discretion)
- United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021) (district courts may deny compassionate-release motions when any statutory prerequisite is lacking and need not address the others)