United States v. James Pizer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2024
• Docket: 23-6683
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES NATHAN PIZER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00006-RAJ-TEM-1)

Submitted: April 5, 2024 Decided: April 25, 2024

Before WYNN, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Edward A. Fiorella, Jr., FRAIM & FIORELLA, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

James Nathan Pizer appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release. Pizer’s motion was premised on the argument that, were he

sentenced today, he would not be a career offender (as he was at his original sentencing)

and would face a lower Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

“This Court reviews the denial of compassionate release motions pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122,

127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court has not acted arbitrarily

or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has conducted the necessary

analysis for exercising its discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In considering a compassionate release motion, “district courts must determine:

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). At the time the

court considered Pizer’s motion, there was no applicable Sentencing Commission policy

statement governing defendant-filed motions for compassionate release; therefore, the

court was “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release”

that Pizer might raise. United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned

up). After conducting this analysis, the district court may grant the motion “if (3) the

relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.”

Malone, 57 F.4th at 173.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

Pizer first argues that the district court erred in finding that he had not shown an

extraordinary and compelling reason for release. However, he spends much of this

argument asserting that the district court had the authority to consider whether the fact that

he would face a lower Guidelines range if sentenced today was an extraordinary and

compelling reason for release. However, the district court agreed with this conclusion,

finding that Pizer had stated a cognizable claim but nonetheless concluding that this

sentencing disparity failed to reach the level of extraordinary and compelling after

considering Pizer’s individual circumstances. The district court expressly considered

Pizer’s arguments regarding the sentencing disparity and found them unpersuasive, given

Pizer’s extensive criminal history, his serious criminal conduct in the instant case, and his

age when he committed the underlying crimes. Such is an appropriate analysis, and to the

extent Pizer is arguing that the district court was required to find that the sentencing

disparity was an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, he is mistaken. See

McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286. As such, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in finding that Pizer failed to show an extraordinary and compelling reason for

release.

Moreover, even if Pizer had shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for

release, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the § 3553(a)

factors weighed against Pizer’s release. On appeal, Pizer repeats his claims below and

avers that his rehabilitation, behavior in prison, and release plan outweigh his serious

criminal conduct and extensive criminal history. However, the district court weighed the

factors differently after appropriate consideration. Such is not an abuse of discretion. See

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6683 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 838 (4th Cir. 2022) (affirming denial of

compassionate release where district court weighed defendant’s rehabilitative conduct “but

decided it was not significant enough to outweigh the other factors”).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED