Florencio Santana appeals from the denial of his motion for compassionate release. He asserts that the district court overlooked his evidence of a plan for his post-release housing and finances. While we agree that the district court either overlooked or misstated the relevant facts on this issue, we find that any error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.
The district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” We review the district courts denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). To commit an abuse of discretion, “a district court must act arbitrarily or irrationally, fail to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, rely on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commit an error of law.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In addition, the district courts consideration of evidence is subject to harmless error review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, such that “in order to find a district courts error harmless, we need only be able to say ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ ” United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 325 (4th Cir. 1995)).
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in either failing to consider the evidence proffered by Santana or in misstating it. Contrary to the courts ruling that Santana “has not set forth any plans for living arrangements,” Santana specifically stated that he would be living with his girlfriend. Further, while the court noted that Santana had not provided work arrangements, his girlfriends letter stated that she could support him. Admittedly, Santana did not detail his post-release plans and only briefly addressed them in his motion; likewise, his girlfriends letter focused primarily on Santanas health. Nonetheless, the district courts statement was clearly incorrect. Because the court relied upon an erroneous factual premise, the district court abused its discretion.
The Government contends, however, that the courts error was harmless, and we agree. The district court explicitly stated that the seriousness of Santanas crime was of particular concern. In addition, when the district court summarized its findings at the end of its order, it relied on the nature of the offense and the small amount of time Santana had served to conclude that release was not warranted. The court also noted that Santana had already received a variance to the mandatory statutory minimum sentence.
The courts one-sentence statement regarding Santanas lack of post-release plans was the last factor considered and appeared to be the least important. Further, Santanas release plan depended on the continued support of his girlfriend but contained no details regarding her financial status. Given Santanas grave and far-reaching criminal conduct, the short time that he had so far been incarcerated, and the brevity of the relevant evidence, we conclude that the district court was not substantially swayed by its belief that Santana had not provided a plan for his release. As such, the district courts error was harmless.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions area adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.