Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-19-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Michael Cole
Case Number: 20-2557
Judge: Adalberto Jose Jordan
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine and cocaine base charge. He now appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release.
In 2016, Cole pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Consistent with his plea agreement, the District Court sentenced him
to 120 months’ imprisonment, sixty-eight months less than the minimum-guideline
sentence suggested for a career offender like Cole.
In June 2020, after exhausting his administrative remedies, Cole sought
compassionate release for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). He stated that his family circumstances warranted a reduction of his
sentence because his wife could no longer care for their two daughters as a result of
having multiple sclerosis (“MS”). She was diagnosed with MS after Cole was sentenced
and has been the sole caregiver for their children, including a three-year-old daughter
who is chronically ill. Cole explained that he needs to be released so he can take care of
his family. The District Court denied the motion. Empathizing with Cole and his
family’s unfortunate situation, the Court nevertheless noted Cole’s “long criminal
history” and explained that it could not “ignore the reasonableness of the sentence that
was imposed” especially when Cole’s sentence was “much lower than the Guidelines
called for, as [he] would quali[f]y as a ‘career offender.’” (ECF No. 75.) The Court left
open the possibility that it might reconsider his motion for compassionate release if his
“health were to become in danger from covid-19, and the Bureau of Prisons was not
3
managing [his] health concerns[.]” (ECF No. 75.) Cole appealed the District Court’s
denial of the motion.
1
II. DISCUSSION2
On appeal, Cole reiterates the same concerns for his wife and children that he
raised below and asserts that the District Court “failed to consider relief even after itself
acknowledging that [he] had met the requirement of compassionate release due to the loss
of a caregiver for his children.” (Opening Br. at 5.) Even if we assume, however, that
Cole meets the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” prerequisite for receiving relief
under § 3582(c)(1)(A), we discern no abuse of discretion here. Consideration of the
sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is part of the analysis in deciding a
motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A), and the District Court correctly undertook that analysis
when it considered Cole’s long criminal history and career offender status. The Court
also considered Cole’s below-guidelines sentence, which had already taken into account
his good behavior in the years between his crime and his indictment. It was certainly
within the Court’s discretion to consider whether a further four-plus-year reduction to
Cole’s sentence was warranted. See United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1008 (6th
Cir. 2020) (noting that sentence reduction was not warranted where, among other factors,
1 Cole later filed a second motion for compassionate release based on his wife’s
medical condition and the prison’s rising number of COVID-19 cases. The District Court
denied that second motion as well. That second motion is not before us on this appeal.
2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion
a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020).
4
“the court had already varied downward by five years from [the defendant’s] guidelines
range when imposing [a] lengthy sentence”).
Outcome: The District Court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the § 3553(a) factors.
We will therefore affirm.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: