United States v. PRETLOW
2:90-cr-00328
D.N.J.Jan 19, 2022Background
- Corey Grant was convicted in 1992 for RICO conspiracy, multiple drug counts, one murder conviction and one attempted murder conviction arising from violent activity while a juvenile member/enforcer of the "E-Port Posse." He received concurrent life sentences plus a consecutive 5-year §924(c) term; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- After Miller v. Alabama, Grant obtained resentencing; Judge Linares reduced life to aggregate 65 years (60 on Counts 1 & 2, concurrent 40s on drug counts, consecutive 5 years on Count 11). The Third Circuit ultimately affirmed the resentencing en banc.
- Grant (age 48) filed a compassionate-release motion under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) citing COVID-19 risks from obesity, hypertension, and diabetes and challenged Section 3553(a) considerations; he was vaccinated and housed at FCI Schuylkill.
- The BOP implemented COVID-19 mitigation and vaccination programs; FCI Schuylkill reported positive cases but no inmate deaths as of the filing date.
- The district court found Grant’s comorbidities controlled, noted his vaccination, and held that Grant failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release; the court also ruled the §3553(a) factors—gravity of offenses, violent conduct, refusal to cooperate, and time remaining—weighed against release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do COVID-19 and Grant’s medical conditions constitute "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for compassionate release? | BOP mitigation and vaccine availability reduce risk; Grant’s vaccination and controlled conditions undermine extraordinary and compelling claim. | Obesity, hypertension, and diabetes increase risk of severe COVID-19 and justify release. | Denied — court: comorbidities are controlled, Grant is vaccinated, and institutional surge did not show deaths; no extraordinary and compelling reason shown. |
| 2. Does failure of the warden to respond (administrative exhaustion) bar the motion? | Government did not contest exhaustion. | Grant had satisfied the statutory exhaustion requirement (warden nonresponse or 30-day lapse). | No bar — exhaustion satisfied per parties; court proceeded to merits. |
| 3. Do the §3553(a) sentencing factors support release? | The seriousness of violent conduct, leadership/"enforcer" role, involvement in murders, refusal to cooperate, and long sentence justify continued incarceration. | Grant’s youth at offense, abusive/upbringing mitigation, BOP programming, and rehabilitation weigh in favor of release. | Denied — court held §3553(a) factors favor continued incarceration given extreme violence, responsibility for multiple killings/attempts, refusal of plea/cooperation, and substantial time remaining. |
| 4. Does the Third Circuit’s en banc decision or the sentencing-package doctrine undermine the resentencing analysis supporting denial? | Government: resentencing and appellate review were adequate; en banc Grant confirms Miller procedures met. | Grant argued resentencing/package issues show inadequate consideration of §3553(a). | Rejected — court found Judge Linares adequately considered Miller and §3553(a); even assuming sentencing-package issues, the result would not change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021) (Miller requires discretionary sentencing but does not mandate specific factual findings)
- United States v. Grant, 9 F.4th 186 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (upholding resentencing as consistent with Miller)
- United States v. Grant, 887 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2018) (panel) (initial appellate decision addressing de facto LWOP analysis)
- United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255 (3d Cir. 2021) (policy statement §1B1.13 is nonbinding guidance on compassionate release)
- United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (district courts may consider remaining time on a sentence in compassionate-release rulings)
- United States v. Davis, 112 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 1997) (sentencing-package doctrine recognizing interplay of concurrent and consecutive sentences)