Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-02-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Vasilios Dourdoumis
Case Number: 20-7408
Judge: Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Court:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing the district court’s orders denying a motion for compassionate release.
A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the Act, if “extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A reduction may be granted
only upon a motion filed by either the Director of the BOP or “the defendant after the
defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to
bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such
a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
This court recently held in United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 2021 WL
4888393 (4th Cir. Oct. 20, 2021), that, “[a]lthough [§ 3582(c)(1)(A)] plainly requires [a
prisoner] to complete certain steps before filing his motion [for compassionate release] in
the district court, . . . this requirement [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived if it is not
3
timely raised.” Id. at *2. Because the district court sua sponte raised the administrative
exhaustion issue in Muhammad, we held that the court reversibly erred when it dismissed
Muhammad’s motion for compassionate release “based on the threshold requirement,
even assuming [Muhammad] had not completed the prerequisites to suit.” Id. at *3.
The district court here did not have the benefit of our decision in Muhammad
when it sua sponte raised the administrative exhaustion issue and denied Dourdoumis’
motion for compassionate release because he failed to establish that he satisfied the Act’s
threshold requirement for filing such a motion. We therefore vacate the court’s order
denying Dourdoumis’ motion for compassionate release and remand for further
proceedings.
Outcome: We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: