United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 75 F.4th 1

Background

Rivera-Rodríguez was convicted of carjacking resulting in death and sentenced in 2011 to 240 months' imprisonment followed by five years' supervised release.
In October 2020 Rivera, citing obesity, hypertension, and pre-diabetes and COVID outbreaks at FCI Butner, moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); the government opposed.
On January 8, 2021 the district court granted compassionate release, reducing Rivera's sentence to time served and imposing home detention and electronic monitoring for the first three years of supervised release.
The government immediately appealed and sought a stay; Rivera was released before the temporary stay took effect. The government later learned Rivera had received two COVID vaccine doses prior to the grant of release.
The government moved to reconsider based on Rivera's vaccination and other post-release developments; the district court denied reconsideration as the government had not shown due diligence and had advanced new arguments it could have raised earlier.
The First Circuit affirmed: it held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the district court properly entertained and denied reconsideration, and the compassionate-release grant was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Rivera's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction over a government appeal of a compassionate-release order	District court order is a sentencing decision; gov't lacks statutory right to appeal such sentences	Gov't may appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 or via § 1291 final-judgment jurisdiction	Appeal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because compassionate-release orders are post-judgment, not a new sentence, and therefore appealable
District court authority to reconsider its own compassionate-release order	Reconsideration of an otherwise final sentence is improper	District court may reconsider post-judgment relief and consider newly discovered evidence	District court has inherent authority to reconsider a compassionate-release order; such motions are not barred as motions to reconsider a final sentence
Denial of the government's motion to reconsider based on Rivera's prior vaccination and other post-release facts	Evidence of vaccination and post-release facts were newly discovered and undermined the basis for release; court abused discretion by not vacating release	The government failed to show the vaccination was truly newly discovered or that it exercised due diligence; many arguments were newly raised on reconsideration	Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion — government did not carry its burden to show newly discovered evidence or manifest error
Merits of compassionate release: extraordinary and compelling reasons and § 3553(a) factors	Rivera's conditions did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons; court overstated prison COVID risk and rehabilitation	Rivera argued COVID risk at Butner plus his health conditions and rehabilitation justified release; release conditions would protect public	District court did not abuse discretion: record supported extraordinary and compelling reasons and § 3553(a) analysis; reduction to time served with supervision was reasonable

Key Cases Cited

United States v. McAndrews, 12 F.3d 273 (1st Cir. 1993) (sentence-reduction orders are post-judgment and appealable under § 1291)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (distinguishes limited post-judgment sentence adjustments from plenary resentencing)
United States v. Trenkler, 47 F.4th 42 (1st Cir. 2022) (First Circuit entertained government compassionate-release appeal)
United States v. Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th 14 (1st Cir. 2022) (framework for compassionate release after the First Step Act)
United States v. Saccoccia, 10 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard for compassionate-release review)
United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (compassionate-release considerations and relation to Sentencing Commission policy)