United States v. Samuel Buoscio
21-3010
| 6th Cir. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- Samuel Buoscio, age 75, served a 57‑month federal sentence for bank and mail fraud after a 1997 federal conviction; he had been continuously incarcerated for over 28 years following a 1992 manslaughter conviction (state) whose sentence ended in 2019.
- While serving the state manslaughter sentence, Buoscio committed fraud and later pleaded no contest to an additional 2007 forgery charge; federal sentence ran consecutively to state time.
- Beginning federal custody in Dec. 2019, Buoscio (obese with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, GERD, hernia, enlarged prostate) sought compassionate release in 2020, citing COVID‑19 risk; the government conceded his conditions could be “extraordinary and compelling.”
- The district court denied release (Dec. 23, 2020) after balancing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, finding: offenses while incarcerated indicated high recidivism risk/danger to the public; he had served only ~12 months of 57; and his conditions were being treated and not debilitating.
- Buoscio argued the court improperly relied on stale convictions, overemphasized the short time served, and failed to credit rehabilitation (no disciplinary infractions since 2012); he appealed. The Sixth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Buoscio's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion denying compassionate release under §3582(c)(1)(A) by weighing §3553(a) factors | Extraordinary and compelling COVID risk justified release | Court properly balanced §3553(a) factors and denial was reasonable | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether court improperly relied on stale/prior convictions | Old convictions are too stale and irrelevant to deny release | Prior offenses (committed while incarcerated) show ongoing pattern and recidivism risk | Court may consider old convictions when relevant; here properly considered |
| Whether denying release because he served only a small portion of sentence was improper | Other courts have granted release after short service; such reliance is inappropriate | District court may weigh time served as reflecting seriousness and deterrence | Affirmed — district court’s different, reasoned judgment is permissible |
| Whether court failed to consider evidence of rehabilitation (clean disciplinary record) | Lack of recent infractions shows rehabilitation and warrants release | Record considered; courts not required to recite every factor; other evidence outweighed it | No abuse; district court need not exhaustively discuss every argument |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tomes, 990 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2021) (standard: abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (courts must consider whole record and explain reasons)
- United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021) (U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 not binding for inmate‑filed motions)
- United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (§3553(a) factors can justify denial despite extraordinary reasons)
- Chavez‑Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018) (sentencing courts must provide reasons sufficient for appellate review)
- United States v. Brissett, [citation="375 F. App'x 473"] (6th Cir. 2010) (old convictions may be relevant when part of ongoing pattern)
- United States v. Amezcua‑Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009) (stale priors can make enhancements or increases unreasonable in some contexts)
- United States v. Keefer, [citation="832 F. App'x 359"] (6th Cir. 2020) (district courts need not issue exhaustive opinions in compassionate‑release decisions)