United States v. Richard Martinez
21-1627
| 3rd Cir. | Oct 13, 2021Background
- In 2012 Martinez pleaded guilty in the E.D. Pa. to a narcotics conspiracy; he had four prior felony drug convictions and was sentenced to 315 months’ imprisonment; he did not appeal.
- In Feb 2021 Martinez moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing COVID-19 risk at his facility and underlying health conditions (prior heart attack, obesity, hypertension).
- He also argued his sentence should be reduced based on a First Step Act provision and pointed to his prison work, completion of programs, and decade of disciplinary compliance.
- The District Court denied relief in March 2021, finding Martinez had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons and that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release; the court noted Martinez had been vaccinated and that the cited First Step Act provision was not retroactive.
- Martinez appealed pro se; the Government moved for summary affirmance in the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit summarily affirmed, holding the District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the § 3553(a) factors strongly weighed against release and therefore affirming the denial without reaching whether extraordinary and compelling reasons were shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compassionate release should be granted under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) based on Martinez’s COVID risk and health | Martinez: COVID outbreak + prior heart attack, obesity, hypertension create extraordinary and compelling reasons for release; plus rehabilitation and First Step Act support | Government/District Court: § 3553(a) factors (seriousness, prior convictions, deterrence, served < half sentence) weigh against release; First Step Act provision cited is not retroactive | Court: Affirmed—no abuse of discretion. § 3553(a) factors strongly weighed against release; court did not need to decide extraordinary-and-compelling question |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion standard for § 3582 review)
- Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2011) (authorizes summary affirmance when appeal presents no substantial question)
- United States v. Murphy, 998 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 2021) (discusses First Step Act retroactivity in § 3582(c)(1)(B) context and distinguishes applicability)