United States v. Roman, 21-185-cr

Anthony Roman was convicted in 2016 of firearms trafficking and possessing a firearm in connection with a narcotics offense and is serving a 90‑month prison sentence.
Roman moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); the government opposed and the district court denied the motion on January 15, 2021.
Roman argued among other things that (1) his sentence was disparate with co‑defendant Paul Barry’s 70‑month sentence and (2) the district court failed to adequately consider his personal history and mitigating circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The district court expressly stated it considered the § 3553(a) factors, including Roman’s history and characteristics, and had addressed differences between Roman and Barry at sentencing.
Roman appealed; the Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s denial of compassionate release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not considering sentencing disparity with co‑defendant Barry when denying compassionate release	Roman: denial procedurally and substantively unreasonable because Barry got 70 months (20 months less)	Gov: no requirement to consider or explain codefendant disparities; district already distinguished Roman from Barry at sentencing	Court: Affirmed — no legal requirement to discuss co‑defendant disparity; district had distinguished their conduct and did not abuse discretion
Whether the district court failed to consider Roman’s individual history and circumstances under § 3553(a)	Roman: court did not adequately weigh his upbringing and mitigating factors	Gov: district expressly considered all § 3553(a) factors, including history and characteristics	Court: Affirmed — record shows district considered § 3553(a); appellate court defers to district’s reasoned balancing

United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (district courts may consider the “full slate” of extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release)
United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371 (2d Cir. 2021) (extraordinary and compelling reasons are necessary but courts must also consider § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (appellate deference to sentencing judges’ reasoned discretion)
United States v. Alcius, 952 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2020) (no requirement to consider or explain sentencing disparities among codefendants)
United States v. Kimber, 777 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2015) (presumption that a sentencing judge considered § 3553(a) absent contrary record)
United States v. Holloway, 956 F.3d 660 (2d Cir. 2020) (standard: review for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (defining standards for abuse of discretion)