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. Brandon Page

Case Number: 20-3538

Judge: David James Porter

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:


Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense Lawyer Directory


Description:

Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing the District Court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release.




Brandon Page appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for compassionate
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Page seeks release from prison because he
believes that, due to the state of his health, he faces a heightened risk of death or serious
injury if he contracts COVID-19. We will affirm the District Court’s order. We write for
the parties, who are familiar with the record.1
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) permits a court to “reduce the term of imprisonment” for
a prisoner if the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction” and “the factors set forth in section 3553(a)” support such a reduction.
Relevant here, § 3553(a) requires a sentencing court to consider “the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” as well
as “the need for the sentence imposed,” including the need to reflect the seriousness of
the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and deter criminal
conduct.
Among other findings, the District Court denied Page’s motion after weighing the
§ 3553(a) factors and determining the factors weighed against Page’s release. We will
limit our review to the District Court’s application of the § 3553(a) factors since
affirmance on this ground alone means Page’s appeal fails. We review the District
Court’s application of the § 3553(a) factors for abuse of discretion, and we will not
disturb the court’s determination unless we are left with a “definite and firm conviction
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and § 3582(c). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3
that [it] committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing
of the relevant factors.” United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020)
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oddi v. Ford Motor
Co., 234 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2000)).
When it weighed the § 3553(a) factors, the District Court determined that Page’s
ten-year sentence “reflects the serious nature of his crime and the fact that he was part of
a major drug trafficking conspiracy.” App. 13–14. The court explained that it could not
“overemphasize the seriousness of Page’s crime” and determined that the sentence Page
received “serves to deter other individuals who might consider engaging in a criminal
drug trafficking conspiracy.” App. 13–14. Indeed, Page pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute one to three kilograms of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Referencing
the § 3553(a) factors, the District Court concluded, “Granting Page compassionate
release would not reflect the seriousness of his crimes, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence from future crime by him, nor would
it prevent sentencing disparities.” App. 14.
Page also complains that the District Court erred in its weighing of the § 3553(a)
factors by not giving enough weight to the fact that he only had a short amount of time
remaining on his sentence. When the District Court issued its order in December 2020,
Page had approximately a year left to serve on his ten-year sentence.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the § 3553(a)
factors. While the length of time remaining on a prison sentence is a factor a district court
can consider, Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 331, the District Court acted within its discretion in
4
determining that the seriousness of Page’s crime, his criminal history, and the leniency
Page previously received on the length of his sentence outweighed the limited period of
time remaining on Page’s sentence. Numerous lower courts have reached the same
conclusion under similar circumstances, demonstrating that the District Court acted
reasonably. See, e.g., United States v. Santiago, Nos. 15-505, 16-505, 2020 WL 4015245,
at *1, *4 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2020) (denying motion for compassionate release when
prisoner had approximately a year remaining on a 97-month sentence because of the
“seriousness of [the prisoner]’s criminal history,” which included “trafficking large
quantities of drugs and illegally purchasing firearms”); United States v. Johnson, No. 08-
297, 2020 WL 7488644, at *1, *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2020) (denying motion for
compassionate release when prisoner had seven months remaining on his twenty-four
month sentence because he twice pleaded guilty “to fleeing from police and carrying an
unlicensed firearm”).

Outcome: We will affirm the order of the District Court

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: