Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-8047 (D.C. No. 2:16-CR-00018-SWS-2) ROBERT V. POUTRE, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before MORITZ, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Robert V. Poutre, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.1
*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Poutre appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but
we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 2
I. Background
Poutre is serving a 181-month sentence after pleading guilty to firarm
and drug charges in the District of Wyoming in 2016. He is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correction Institution (“FCI”) at Terminal
Island, San Pedro, California, having now served approximately 122
months of his sentence.
This appeal concerns the fourth compassionate release motion Poutre
has filed since 2020. His first three were denied on the ground that he did
not establish “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release within the
meaning of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his second and third motions, Poutre
argued his health conditions – including chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, hepatitis-C, sleep apnea, and severe asthma – posed higher risk
factors for COVID-19. The district court held Poutre’s conditions were not
extraordinary and compelling because (1) Poutre had been vaccinated
against COVID-19, and (2) he had already contracted COVID-19 but was
asymptomatic.
Poutre’s fourth compassionate release motion relied on the same
health conditions. The district court noted, however, that there had been no
evidence of a material changes regarding Poutre’s health conditions or the
impact of COVID-19. Indeed, the district court observed that if anything,
circumstances had improved: the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) had
2 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 3
declared the public health emergency over, the immunization rates for
inmates at Terminal Island were higher, and there were no current
COVID-19 cases in the inmate population.
The district court therefore held Poutre had not established
extraordinary and compelling circumstances. For similar reasons, it further
held that granting Poutre’s request for compassionate release would be
inconsistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission. Accordingly, the district court denied Poutre’s motion. This
timely appeal followed.
II. Discussion
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate
release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027,
1031 (10th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion if it makes “an
incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.”
United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013).
With a few “narrow exceptions,” federal courts lack authority to
modify a term of imprisonment once imposed. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th
at 1029 (internal quotation marks omitted). A compassionate release
motion under § 3582(c)(1) is one of those exceptions. See id. A district court
may grant compassionate release if it finds that:
3 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 4
(1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a reduced
sentence;
(2) a “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements” from
the Sentencing Commission; and
(3) a reduction is warranted after considering the applicable
sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); accord United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821,
831 (10th Cir. 2021). To prevail on a compassionate release motion, a
defendant must satisfy all three statutory requirements. A district court
“may deny compassionate-release motions when any of the three
prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking and do[es] not need to
address the others.” United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court denied Poutre’s
motion based on the first and second requirements.
Poutre argues the district court abused its discretion because it failed
to consider evidence of his rehabilitation in evaluating whether he had
established extraordinary and compelling reasons. We reject this
contention. Congress has specified that “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant
alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” 28
U.S.C. § 994(t). The district court carefully considered Poutre’s health
conditions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and concluded he had
4 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 5
failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Poutre’s
rehabilitative efforts are commendable, but consideration of those efforts
would not have transformed his health conditions into extraordinary and
compelling reasons.
Poutre also contends the district court abused its discretion in
concluding that he failed to establish that his risk of COVID-19 infection
was an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. He
appears to make three arguments in support of this contention. First, the
district court relied in part on the fact that Poutre has been vaccinated
against COVID-19, but he says the district court ignored his argument that
his inhaler suppresses his immune system and reduces the effectiveness of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-8047 (D.C. No. 2:16-CR-00018-SWS-2) ROBERT V. POUTRE, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before MORITZ, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Robert V. Poutre, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.1
*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Poutre appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but
we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 2
I. Background
Poutre is serving a 181-month sentence after pleading guilty to firarm
and drug charges in the District of Wyoming in 2016. He is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correction Institution (“FCI”) at Terminal
Island, San Pedro, California, having now served approximately 122
months of his sentence.
This appeal concerns the fourth compassionate release motion Poutre
has filed since 2020. His first three were denied on the ground that he did
not establish “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release within the
meaning of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his second and third motions, Poutre
argued his health conditions – including chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, hepatitis-C, sleep apnea, and severe asthma – posed higher risk
factors for COVID-19. The district court held Poutre’s conditions were not
extraordinary and compelling because (1) Poutre had been vaccinated
against COVID-19, and (2) he had already contracted COVID-19 but was
asymptomatic.
Poutre’s fourth compassionate release motion relied on the same
health conditions. The district court noted, however, that there had been no
evidence of a material changes regarding Poutre’s health conditions or the
impact of COVID-19. Indeed, the district court observed that if anything,
circumstances had improved: the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) had
2 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 3
declared the public health emergency over, the immunization rates for
inmates at Terminal Island were higher, and there were no current
COVID-19 cases in the inmate population.
The district court therefore held Poutre had not established
extraordinary and compelling circumstances. For similar reasons, it further
held that granting Poutre’s request for compassionate release would be
inconsistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission. Accordingly, the district court denied Poutre’s motion. This
timely appeal followed.
II. Discussion
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate
release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027,
1031 (10th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion if it makes “an
incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.”
United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013).
With a few “narrow exceptions,” federal courts lack authority to
modify a term of imprisonment once imposed. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th
at 1029 (internal quotation marks omitted). A compassionate release
motion under § 3582(c)(1) is one of those exceptions. See id. A district court
may grant compassionate release if it finds that:
3 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 4
(1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a reduced
sentence;
(2) a “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements” from
the Sentencing Commission; and
(3) a reduction is warranted after considering the applicable
sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); accord United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821,
831 (10th Cir. 2021). To prevail on a compassionate release motion, a
defendant must satisfy all three statutory requirements. A district court
“may deny compassionate-release motions when any of the three
prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking and do[es] not need to
address the others.” United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court denied Poutre’s
motion based on the first and second requirements.
Poutre argues the district court abused its discretion because it failed
to consider evidence of his rehabilitation in evaluating whether he had
established extraordinary and compelling reasons. We reject this
contention. Congress has specified that “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant
alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” 28
U.S.C. § 994(t). The district court carefully considered Poutre’s health
conditions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and concluded he had
4 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 5
failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Poutre’s
rehabilitative efforts are commendable, but consideration of those efforts
would not have transformed his health conditions into extraordinary and
compelling reasons.
Poutre also contends the district court abused its discretion in
concluding that he failed to establish that his risk of COVID-19 infection
was an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. He
appears to make three arguments in support of this contention. First, the
district court relied in part on the fact that Poutre has been vaccinated
against COVID-19, but he says the district court ignored his argument that
his inhaler suppresses his immune system and reduces the effectiveness of
vaccines. To the contrary, the district court specifically addressed that
argument, noting that Poutre was using the inhaler the last time he
contracted COVID-19, and there was no evidence his infection was made
more severe.
Second, the district court found the circumstances relating to
COVID-19 had improved considerably since the time that Poutre’s second
and third compassionate release motions were denied. In particular, the
district court noted that the government’s most recent data indicated 539
of 942 inmates at FCI Terminal Island had been fully vaccinated, and there
were no open COVID-19 cases at the facility. Poutre suggests this data is
5 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 6
unsound and that the government failed to provide evidence to support it.
But the burden of proof is on Poutre, not the government, and he only offers
speculation in support of his theory.
Third, Poutre argues the district court abused its discretion in
concluding the pandemic is over. In support, he says he submitted into
evidence a newspaper article detailing a surge of COVID-19 cases in
nursing homes in Los Angeles County. The district court, however, acted
well within its discretion in relying upon the May 2023 declaration by the
CDC that the COVID-19 public health emergency had ended.2
2 Having affirmed the district court’s finding that Poutre failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances, we need not address his argument that the district court erred in holding a sentence reduction would be inconsistent with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements. See United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 942-43 (10th Cir. 2021) (recognizing motions for compassionate release may be denied “for failure to satisfy [any] one of the steps,” and there is “no benefit in requiring [courts] to make the useless gesture of determining whether one of the other steps is satisfied”). 6 Appellate Case: 24-8047 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 7
III. Conclusion
Poutre has not shown the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for compassionate release. We therefore AFFIRM the
district court’s order.
Entered for the Court
Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge