64 F.4th 257
5th Cir.2023Background
- Jeffrey McMaryion pleaded guilty in 2013 to a cocaine-distribution conspiracy and was sentenced to 262 months (bottom of Guidelines range) plus 12 months for a revoked supervised-release term (total 274 months); this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- In November 2020 he moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing ineffective assistance/breach claims, First Step Act changes, a Guidelines amendment, and COVID-19/health risks.
- The district court (Judge Counts, who did not originally sentence McMaryion) denied the motion in a two-sentence order stating it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Sentencing Commission policy statements and denied the motion on the merits.
- McMaryion appealed; this Court reviews legal questions de novo and the denial of compassionate release for abuse of discretion.
- The majority affirmed, holding three of McMaryion’s theories non-cognizable or meritless and rejecting COVID-based risk as ‘‘extraordinary and compelling’’ absent terminal illness; a dissent would remand for a fuller explanation by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of ineffective-assistance and plea-breach claims in a § 3582(c)(1) motion | These defects make confinement unlawful and justify release | Such claims are cognizable and should be considered in compassionate-release proceedings | Held: Not cognizable under § 3582(c)(1); such claims belong in § 2255 proceedings |
| Effect of First Step Act non-retroactive sentencing reductions | First Step Act reduces applicable penalties and warrants relief | Reductions are not made retroactive by Congress and thus cannot justify compassionate release | Held: Cannot rely on non-retroactive statutory changes as ‚extraordinary and compelling' grounds |
| Reliance on Sentencing Guidelines amendment | Amendment reduces Guidelines exposure and supports release | Argument was not adequately presented to district court; change, if relevant, is for § 3582(c)(2) | Held: Forfeited below and in any event properly pursued under § 3582(c)(2), not § 3582(c)(1) |
| COVID-19 / prior infection and general poor health as extraordinary and compelling | Prior COVID infection and poor health increase risk and justify release | Risk of disease alone (without terminal prognosis) is not an extraordinary-and-compelling circumstance | Held: Denied — fear or increased risk from COVID-19 does not meet the required extraordinary-and-compelling standard absent terminal illness |
| Procedural adequacy of the district court's two-sentence order | District court failed to articulate sufficient reasons; remand required | A brief statement that the court considered § 3553(a) factors suffices; remand unnecessary where merits fail | Held (majority): The district court’s statement that it considered § 3553(a) and policy statements is sufficient; dissent would remand for fuller explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184 (5th Cir. 2023) (standard of review and recent articulation of extraordinary-and-compelling standard)
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (terminal prognosis can qualify as extraordinary and compelling; district court must articulate reasons)
- Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018) (context determines when brevity in sentencing explanations suffices)
- Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022) (district courts retain discretion to consider intervening changes and may give brief explanations when appropriate)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (ordinary practice and presumption against retroactive criminal-law changes)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural requirements at sentencing; must ensure no significant procedural error)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c) proceedings are limited adjustments, not plenary resentencings)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (presumption against retroactivity)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097 (5th Cir.) (denial of compassionate release where movant feared COVID-19 despite poor health)