USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-16)
Submitted: April 10, 2023 Decided: April 18, 2023
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Therese Conklin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Michael Paul Puzey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order on remand
denying both his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),
as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat.
5194, 5239, and his reinstated motion for compassionate release. Puzey moved for
compassionate release based on his health conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic. In
support of his request for early release, Puzey pointed to significant evidence of his
rehabilitation during his more than 20 years in federal prison, and he asserted that his risk
of recidivism had drastically decreased based on his age. The district court assumed that
Puzey had established “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release,
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but denied Puzey’s motion after stating that it had considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that Puzey remained “a danger to the safety of any
other person or to the community” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13,
p.s. (2018). For the reasons explained below, we vacate and remand.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Puzey’s request for
compassionate release. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). “A
district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to follow
statutory requirements, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its
exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of
law.” Id. (cleaned up).
When deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence based on “extraordinary
and compelling” circumstances under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court generally
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
proceeds in three steps. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First,
the district court decides whether “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances in fact
support a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, the district court
considers whether granting a sentence reduction is “consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement applicable to
defendant-filed motions for compassionate release has yet to take effect, the district court
is “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a
defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020)
(cleaned up). If the defendant passes the first two steps, the district court then considers at
the third step whether the § 3553(a) factors, “to the extent that they are applicable,” favor
early release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
While expressing some doubt, the district court assumed that Puzey passed the first
step and proceeded to the second and third steps. The entirety of the district court’s analysis
at the latter two steps, however, consisted of the court listing several offenses for which
Puzey had been arrested in the 1990s—only a few of which resulted in convictions—and
a determination based on those arrests and convictions that Puzey presented a danger to
another person or to the community under USSG § 1B1.13 and thus could not be awarded
compassionate release.
We are satisfied that the district court’s analysis contains three errors that, when
considered in combination, amount to an abuse of discretion and require a vacatur of its
order. First, the district court treated the policy statement applicable to compassionate
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
release motions filed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, USSG § 1B1.13, as dispositive of
Puzey’s defendant-filed motion when it ruled that Puzey could not attain relief because he
was a danger to the safety of another person or the community. See United States v.
Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 174 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A] district court must not entirely rely upon
§ 1B1.13 when considering a defendant’s motion for compassionate release.”); United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 330-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that district court
incorrectly ruled that USSG § 1B1.13 was “applicable” to defendant-filed motion for
compassionate release).
Second, the only factor that the district court explicitly considered in its analysis
after the first step was Puzey’s criminal history before his federal convictions. The district
court thus seems to have improperly assigned controlling weight to a single factor in
denying compassionate release. See United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir.
2006) (explaining that “excessive weight” should not be given to any single § 3553(a)
factor (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Third, we conclude that the district court’s analysis does not “allow for meaningful
appellate review” because the court failed to consider Puzey’s most persuasive arguments
and evidence supporting early release. High, 997 F.3d at 190 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Although a district court resolving a compassionate release motion need not
acknowledge and address each of the defendant’s arguments, id. at 188-89, “the record as
a whole must satisfy this Court that the judge considered the parties’ arguments and had a
reasoned basis for exercising [her] own legal decisionmaking authority,” Malone, 57 F.4th
at 176 (cleaned up). The record in this case does not establish that the district court even
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-16)
Submitted: April 10, 2023 Decided: April 18, 2023
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Therese Conklin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Michael Paul Puzey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order on remand
denying both his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),
as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat.
5194, 5239, and his reinstated motion for compassionate release. Puzey moved for
compassionate release based on his health conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic. In
support of his request for early release, Puzey pointed to significant evidence of his
rehabilitation during his more than 20 years in federal prison, and he asserted that his risk
of recidivism had drastically decreased based on his age. The district court assumed that
Puzey had established “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release,
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but denied Puzey’s motion after stating that it had considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that Puzey remained “a danger to the safety of any
other person or to the community” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13,
p.s. (2018). For the reasons explained below, we vacate and remand.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Puzey’s request for
compassionate release. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). “A
district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to follow
statutory requirements, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its
exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of
law.” Id. (cleaned up).
When deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence based on “extraordinary
and compelling” circumstances under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court generally
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
proceeds in three steps. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First,
the district court decides whether “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances in fact
support a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, the district court
considers whether granting a sentence reduction is “consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement applicable to
defendant-filed motions for compassionate release has yet to take effect, the district court
is “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a
defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020)
(cleaned up). If the defendant passes the first two steps, the district court then considers at
the third step whether the § 3553(a) factors, “to the extent that they are applicable,” favor
early release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
While expressing some doubt, the district court assumed that Puzey passed the first
step and proceeded to the second and third steps. The entirety of the district court’s analysis
at the latter two steps, however, consisted of the court listing several offenses for which
Puzey had been arrested in the 1990s—only a few of which resulted in convictions—and
a determination based on those arrests and convictions that Puzey presented a danger to
another person or to the community under USSG § 1B1.13 and thus could not be awarded
compassionate release.
We are satisfied that the district court’s analysis contains three errors that, when
considered in combination, amount to an abuse of discretion and require a vacatur of its
order. First, the district court treated the policy statement applicable to compassionate
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
release motions filed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, USSG § 1B1.13, as dispositive of
Puzey’s defendant-filed motion when it ruled that Puzey could not attain relief because he
was a danger to the safety of another person or the community. See United States v.
Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 174 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A] district court must not entirely rely upon
§ 1B1.13 when considering a defendant’s motion for compassionate release.”); United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 330-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that district court
incorrectly ruled that USSG § 1B1.13 was “applicable” to defendant-filed motion for
compassionate release).
Second, the only factor that the district court explicitly considered in its analysis
after the first step was Puzey’s criminal history before his federal convictions. The district
court thus seems to have improperly assigned controlling weight to a single factor in
denying compassionate release. See United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir.
2006) (explaining that “excessive weight” should not be given to any single § 3553(a)
factor (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Third, we conclude that the district court’s analysis does not “allow for meaningful
appellate review” because the court failed to consider Puzey’s most persuasive arguments
and evidence supporting early release. High, 997 F.3d at 190 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Although a district court resolving a compassionate release motion need not
acknowledge and address each of the defendant’s arguments, id. at 188-89, “the record as
a whole must satisfy this Court that the judge considered the parties’ arguments and had a
reasoned basis for exercising [her] own legal decisionmaking authority,” Malone, 57 F.4th
at 176 (cleaned up). The record in this case does not establish that the district court even
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7070 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 5 of 5
considered Puzey’s significant evidence of rehabilitation, which he cited in his
compassionate release motion and reinstated motion for compassionate release. * See
United States v. Gutierrez, No. 21-7092, 2023 WL 245001, at *4 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023)
(explaining that district court erred by failing to address defendant’s significant evidence
of rehabilitation before denying compassionate release). Nor does the record show that the
district court considered Puzey’s argument about his reduced risk of recidivism due to his
age, which countered the court’s only identified concern about Puzey’s early release, i.e.,
his future dangerousness.
In light of those errors, we vacate the district court’s order denying Puzey’s
compassionate release motion and reinstated motion for compassionate release and remand
for further proceedings. By this disposition, we express no view on the ultimate merits of
Puzey’s request for compassionate release. 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
* While Puzey did not attach his rehabilitation evidence to his compassionate release motion or reinstated motion for compassionate release, that evidence was already in the record, and Puzey referenced that evidence in both motions.