Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-01-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Kadeem Thomas
Case Number: 20-3105
Judge: Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
Court:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
On appeal from The District Court
of the Virgin Islands
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
New York, NY - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy, bank robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.
A jury sitting in the District Court of the Virgin Islands found Thomas guilty of
Hobbs Act conspiracy, bank robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission
of a crime of violence. He received concurrent 60-month sentences for the conspiracy and
bank robbery convictions, and a consecutive, mandatory-minimum sentence of 84 months
for the firearm conviction. Thomas’s direct appeal, see United States v. Browne, 525 F.
App’x 213 (3d Cir. 2013), and first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), see United States
v. Thomas, C.A. No. 17-3261 (3d Cir. April 30, 2018), were unsuccessful.
1
In April 2020, Thomas filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), based on the proliferation of COVID-19. The District Court
denied the motion without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Thomas refiled his motion soon after. He cited COVID-19 statistics for Yazoo
City Low and the BOP generally. He noted that he had served 8 years of a 12-year
sentence, that he had a clean disciplinary record while in prison, and that he had plans for
future employment (a job with a trucking company) and residency (with his mother).
1 Thomas is projected to be released next year, on June 11, 2022.
3
Thomas also claimed to have a medical condition worthy of consideration, though he did
not elaborate as to what that condition might be.
In response, the Government filed an opposition outlining at length the steps the
BOP has taken to control the spread of COVID-19 in federal prisons. It also argued,
consistent with the coda in United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020), that no
relief is due because “Thomas claims no medical or health conditions” and “[i]n effect”
contends “that the pandemic itself justifies his release. The success of such an argument
would necessitate the wholescale release of the entire federal prison population.” DC
ECF No. 191 at 6.
Thomas replied, arguing that COVID-19 rates had been particularly high at Yazoo
City Low. Thomas did not refute the Government’s assertion that he failed to identify a
medical or other reason why he might be more susceptible to infection than any other
BOP inmate; instead, he gathered a handful of anecdotes of seemingly healthy people
catching and succumbing to the virus.
The District Court agreed with the Government’s arguments and denied relief by
order entered on September 15, 2020. See DC ECF No. 194. The District Court explained
that it was Thomas’s “burden to show he is entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to
Section 3582(c)(1),” and that he had not shouldered that burden. DC ECF No. 193 at 4.
Relying on Raia, the District Court determined that Thomas failed to demonstrate “any
extraordinary or compelling reasons to reduce his sentence.” DC ECF No. 193 at 5. The
4
District Court determined as well that, even if Thomas had advanced a compelling basis
for relief, he nevertheless failed to address the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement
concerning an inmate’s dangerousness and “whether a reduction in his sentence would be
consistent with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” DC ECF No. 193 at 5. This
appeal followed.
2
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion
the District Court’s order denying Thomas’s motion for compassionate release.
See United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). “An abuse of
discretion exists when the decision rests ‘on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d
310, 320 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
III.
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) authorizes compassionate release based on an
“extraordinary and compelling” reason. We agree with the District Court that Thomas’s
motion was not supported by such a reason.
2 Section 3582(c) is considered part of a litigant’s criminal proceedings, so the fourteenday appeal window set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) applies. See United States v.
Payton, 979 F.3d 388, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2020) (per curiam order); cf. United States v.
Chapple, 847 F.3d 227, 228 (5th Cir. 2017). Thomas’s notice of appeal is dated
September 25, 2020, see DC ECF No. 195, and he has sworn under penalty of perjury
that that was the date of the document’s transmission to the prison mailing system, see
Doc. 5. Thomas’s appeal of the District Court’s September 15, 2020 order is timely. See
5
In Raia, we observed that “the mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the
possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify
compassionate release, especially considering BOP’s statutory role, and its extensive and
professional efforts to curtail the virus’s spread.” 954 F.3d at 597. In other words, an
inmate must point to something more than the existence of COVID-19. Before the
District Court, however, Thomas identified no reason why, despite the BOP’s efforts to
control the virus, he is more vulnerable to it than other inmates. Cf. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d
at 330. Additionally, the District Court noted that at the time of its decision there were no
active cases of COVID-19 at Yazoo City Low.
3
Outcome: For those reasons, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in
denying relief. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment below.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: