United States v. McPherson
2:09-cr-01348-RMG
| D.S.C. | Jun 23, 2023Background:
- In 2012 McPherson pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (using/carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence) based on an armed robbery of a fellow drug dealer that produced a high‑speed chase and the defendants discarding a gun and drugs.
- At sentencing McPherson was classified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because his § 924(c) conviction was treated as a crime of violence and he had multiple prior felony drug convictions; his guideline range was 262–327 months and he received 262 months.
- McPherson filed a motion for compassionate release citing the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Green (finding Hobbs Act robbery not a career‑offender crime of violence) and argued his sentence would be lower today.
- The Government opposed release, noting McPherson’s conviction was under § 924(c) (not Hobbs Act alone) and relying on Fourth Circuit precedent (e.g., Mathis) holding Hobbs Act robbery can still serve as a predicate for § 924(c).
- The court found jurisdictional requirements for compassionate release satisfied but held (1) compassionate release cannot be used to collaterally attack a prior sentence and (2) Fourth Circuit law still supports treating the § 924(c) conviction as a crime of violence.
- The court denied relief both on those legal grounds and, alternatively, after weighing the § 3553(a) factors—emphasizing offense seriousness, extensive criminal history, in‑prison disciplinary issues, and ongoing public‑safety concerns.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Green-style precedent (Hobbs Act no longer a career‑offender predicate) supplies an "extraordinary and compelling" basis for compassionate release | McPherson: Green makes his career‑offender designation invalid and thus his sentence would be lower today | Gov: Compassionate release cannot be used to collaterally attack a sentence; use § 2255 | Denied — compassionate release cannot be used to relitigate lawfulness of prior sentence (Ferguson) |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery still qualifies as a predicate for a § 924(c) crime of violence | McPherson: Green suggests Hobbs Act is not a crime of violence for career‑offender analysis | Gov: Fourth Circuit precedent (Mathis and subsequent decisions) supports § 924(c) predicate status for Hobbs Act robbery | Denied — Mathis and related authority keep § 924(c) conviction as a crime of violence for purposes relevant here |
| Even if threshold met, whether § 3553(a) factors warrant reduction | McPherson: (implicit) sentence reduction justified given changed law | Gov: Serious offense, long criminal history, in‑custody misconduct, public safety justify continued term | Denied — § 3553(a) factors weigh strongly against release |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 996 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2021) (held Hobbs Act robbery not a crime of violence for career‑offender guideline purposes)
- United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019) (treated Hobbs Act robbery as a valid predicate for § 924(c))
- United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262 (4th Cir. 2022) (compassionate release cannot be used to collaterally attack a sentence; § 2255 is exclusive vehicle)
- United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (explained compassionate‑release standards and scope of "extraordinary and compelling" language)
- United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussed COVID‑related particularized medical risk standard for compassionate release)