United States v. Purify, 20-5075

Background

Defendant Corry Purify was convicted of a drug-conspiracy offense and sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and five years supervised release.
In April 2020 he requested transfer to home confinement under the CARES Act; the Warden denied that request on May 5, 2020.
On May 22, 2020 Purify filed a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion (compassionate release) that was internally ambiguous—seeking modification to time served and/or home confinement.
The district court dismissed the motion sua sponte on July 8, 2020 for lack of jurisdiction based on alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and alternatively denied relief on the merits, finding BOP COVID-19 measures sufficient.
Purify appealed, arguing (1) his CARES Act petition exhausted § 3582 remedies, (2) his pro se CARES petition should be read as a § 3582 request, (3) equitable exceptions to exhaustion apply, and (4) the district court erred on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Purify's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction because Purify failed to exhaust administrative remedies	Purify contends he exhausted remedies and the court lacked jurisdiction	Govt argues Purify failed to exhaust and exhaustion is a mandatory claim-processing rule that may be enforced	The court erred to call the rule jurisdictional, but enforcement of exhaustion was proper; the error was harmless and judgment affirmed
Whether a CARES Act request to BOP exhausts § 3582(c)(1)(A) remedies	CARES Act petitions are equivalent to compassionate-release requests	CARES Act home-confinement requests are distinct from § 3582 motions seeking judicial sentence reduction	No: CARES Act transfer requests do not satisfy § 3582 exhaustion requirement
Whether the district court must construe a pro se CARES Act petition as a § 3582 motion	As a pro se litigant, his CARES petition should be liberally construed as invoking § 3582	Court is not the litigant’s advocate and need not construct arguments or rewrite requests	No: court was not required to convert the CARES Act petition into a § 3582 motion
Whether compassionate release was warranted on the merits due to COVID-19 and facility conditions	High infection rates and facility conditions at FPC Yankton made release necessary	BOP had taken substantial measures; Purify did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons or unique vulnerability	Denial on the merits was not an abuse of discretion; compassionate release was unwarranted

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027 (10th Cir. 2021) (holds § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule)
United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (mere presence of COVID-19 in prisons is insufficient alone to justify compassionate release)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (claim-processing rules may be forfeited or waived if not timely asserted)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from waivable rules)
United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 3582 sentence-reduction decisions)
United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (appellate standard and § 3582 frameworks cited)
United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (compassionate-release appellate review cited)
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (compassionate-release appellate review cited)
United States v. Ramirez, 304 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (limits on courts construing pro se filings as counsel)