Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-03-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Shara Tyesha Cumins
Case Number: 20-7039
Judge: Robert E. Bacharach
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma - Muskogee
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Denver, CO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with
asking the district court to order home confinement or to require release based on her time served due to the the COVID-19 pandemic.
The district court declined to order home confinement, reasoning that
only the Bureau of Prisons can put an inmate in home confinement. The
court was right. Home confinement amounts to a designation of the home
as the place of imprisonment. Like other placement decisions, this one is
reserved to the Bureau of Prisons’ Director. CARES Act, Pub. L. 116–136,
134 Stat. 281, § 12003(b)(2); see United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 836
(6th Cir. 2020) (stating that the CARES Act provides authority for the
Bureau of Prisons to identify prisoners suited for home confinement).
Ms. Cumins also asked the district court to order early release. The
government concedes that the court could order early release upon a
finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court concluded that Ms. Cumins’s reasons
for early release were not extraordinary and compelling, and we review
Appellate Case: 20-7039 Document: 010110466637 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 2
3
that conclusion under the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v.
Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145, 1147–48 (10th Cir. 2020).
In declining to order early release, the court acknowledged that it
could order early release for prisoners with a serious medical condition
diminishing the ability to provide self-care. U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.13 cmt. 1(A)(ii)(I) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018).
In district court, Ms. Cumins alleged a serious medical condition
consisting of hypertension and asthma. 1 The district court concluded that
Ms. Cumins’s hypertension had resolved, and she does not question this
conclusion. She instead relies on a diagnosis of asthma, which the Bureau
of Prisons confirmed roughly two weeks before she moved for early
release. The parties disagree, however, on the severity of her asthma.
The government acknowledged that the risk from COVID–19 is
particularly severe for people suffering from moderate or severe asthma.
But the government pointed out in district court that Ms. Cumins had not
proven that her asthma was moderate or severe.
1 Ms. Cumins also argues that the court failed to consider that her
children’s caregiver is sick, her husband is incarcerated, and she is a firsttime offender. But the court recognized that it could order early release
upon incapacitation of the caregiver of a prisoner’s children. U.S. Sent’g
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. 1(C)(i) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018). And
the court noted Ms. Cumins’s criminal history and her responsibility for
her children. But the court reasoned that it had already considered these
factors when imposing the sentence.
Appellate Case: 20-7039 Document: 010110466637 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 3
4
On appeal, Ms. Cumins argues that she has obtained evidence that
her asthma is severe. But the district court couldn’t abuse its discretion by
failing to consider documents that had not been presented to it.
Nor could we consider those documents because they haven’t been
presented to us. We are not a court of first resort; our role is only to decide
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying relief. We can
consider only those documents in the record on appeal, and that record is
limited to the docket sheet, the documents filed in district court, and
transcriptions of the proceedings in district court. Fed. R. App. P. 10(a);
see Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981) (stating
that we are confined to the record on appeal and powerless to build a new
record).
The district court not only questioned the severity of Ms. Cumins’s
asthma but also reasoned that the statutory sentencing factors would not
support early release. The court pointed out that it had varied downward at
the initial sentencing, and Ms. Cumins does not question this part of the
district court’s reasoning.
In our view, the district court acted within its discretion. It was up to
the Bureau of Prisons to decide whether Ms. Cumins was a suitable
candidate for home confinement. The court appropriately considered the
possibility of early release. These considerations included Ms. Cumins’s
risk factors for COVID–19, but she presented no allegations or evidence
Appellate Case: 20-7039 Document: 010110466637 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 4
5
establishing that her asthma was moderate or severe. And the district court
reasoned that the statutory sentencing factors would weigh against early
release. This reasoning fell within the realm of discretion afforded to the
district court.
Outcome: So we affirm the denial of Ms. Cumins’s motion and the denial of reconsideration.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: