UNITED STATES v. BERRY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.2021-04-29No. No. 20-14274

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's determination that the appellant failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

Sheena Berry sought compassionate release from her prison sentence under the First Step Act, citing the spread of COVID-19 within the Bureau of Prisons facility and her medical vulnerabilities stemming from obesity and cardiovascular disease. She also highlighted her status as a model inmate convicted of a non-violent offense. The district court rejected her petition, finding that she had failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release, and the mere presence of COVID-19 in society and potential prison transmission were insufficient grounds for compassionate relief.

On appeal, Berry conceded she was not automatically entitled to release but argued the district court made several legal errors in its analysis. The appellate court reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion and found none. The court determined that the district court did not improperly treat sentencing guideline limitations as controlling, correctly understood Berry's arguments, and explicitly addressed the potential applicability of a catch-all provision. The court also held that because no binding precedent yet required consideration of statutory sentencing factors in First Step Act motions, the district court's omission of that analysis did not constitute reversible error.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether COVID-19 spread in prisons constitutes an extraordinary and compelling circumstance for compassionate release
What legal factors and guidelines a district court must analyze when evaluating First Step Act compassionate release motions
Standard of review for district court rulings on compassionate release under the First Step Act

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed the district court's denial of her second amended motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Sheena Berry appeals the district courts denial of her second amended motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 208), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm.

In her motion, Ms. Berry relied on the continued spread of the COVID-19 virus in the Bureau of Prisons (and her facility) and her increased risk of severe illness due to her obesity and hyperlipidemia (a form of cardiovascular disease). She also asserted that she had been a model prisoner who had committed a non-violent offense. The district court concluded that Ms. Berry did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and that the existence of COVID-19 in society – and the possibility of spread within a prison – did not justify compassionate release. It later denied Ms. Berrys motion for reconsideration.

Ms. Berry concedes that she is not entitled to release, but argues that the district court committed a number of errors in denying her motion. We review a district courts ruling on a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021), and find no abuse here. First, we do not believe that the district court treated the limitation in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. (n.1) as controlling. Second, there is no indication that the district court misunderstood Ms. Berrys argument for compassionate release. Third, although Ms. Berry contends that the district court failed to analyze the fourth catch-all category of § 1B1.13 cmt. (n.1), the court explained in its reconsideration order that it would deny relief even if it considered “a potential catch-all provision.” Fourth, we have not yet held that a district must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in ruling on a First Step Act motion for compassionate release. Given the lack of binding precedent, we cannot say that the district courts failure to discuss and consider those factors constitutes an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. We have expedited the appeal due to Ms. Berrys scheduled release date in September of 2021, and set out only what is necessary to explain our decision.

. As to other issues raised by Ms. Berry, we affirm without discussion.

PER CURIAM: