United States v. Miller
20-61113
| 5th Cir. | Aug 11, 2021Background
- Angela Bryson Miller was convicted of two counts of aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and § 924(c), and sentenced to 384 months' imprisonment plus five years' supervised release.
- Miller moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing obesity, hypertension, and heightened COVID-19 risk; she also pointed to her role as caretaker for aging parents (raised only on appeal) and her co-defendant’s alleged recantation.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding Miller’s medical conditions did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons and that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release.
- The court also noted the First Step Act’s amendment to § 924(c) is not retroactive and rejected using the compassionate-release motion to relitigate the underlying sentence based on the co-defendant’s recantation.
- Miller appealed, arguing the district court erred in evaluating her COVID-19 risk, misweighing § 3553(a) factors (including the First Step Act), and improperly discounting the recantation.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the district court did not commit legal error or clearly erroneous factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller's obesity and hypertension amid COVID-19 constitute "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for release | Miller: her conditions make her particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19, warranting relief | Government: medical conditions do not meet the extraordinary-and-compelling standard here | Court: No abuse of discretion; conditions not extraordinary and compelling under § 3582(c)(1)(A) |
| Whether the district court misweighed the § 3553(a) factors and should have given weight to First Step Act changes | Miller: § 3553(a) factors favor reduction given sentencing reforms | Government: First Step Act § 924(c) amendment is nonretroactive; § 3553(a) still counsels against release | Court: Affirmed—district properly weighed § 3553(a); First Step Act amendment not retroactive |
| Whether co-defendant's alleged recantation justifies compassionate release or attack on underlying sentence | Miller: recantation undermines original conviction/sentence and supports release | Government: recantation is a collateral attack on the conviction; not appropriate in § 3582 proceeding | Court: Recantation attack is for § 2255; not a basis for § 3582 relief |
| Whether Miller's caregiving duties to aging parents justify relief | Miller: (raised on appeal) she is primary caretaker and needs release | Government: issue was not raised in district court; therefore not before the appellate court | Court: Did not consider it on appeal as Miller failed to raise it below |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard of review and extraordinary-and-compelling analysis for § 3582 motions)
- United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021) (limits on district-court obligations when resolving § 3582 motions)
- United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2016) (appellate review deference to district court's weighing of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act § 924(c) amendment is not retroactive)
- Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2000) (proper vehicle for collateral attacks on convictions is § 2255)
- Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 1999) (appellate courts generally will not consider arguments or evidence not presented to the district court)