United States v. Sandford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2024
• Docket: 22-2904
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

22-2904-cr (L) United States of America v. Sandford

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of May, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. 22-2904 (L), 22-3221 (Con)

EDWARD M. SANDFORD, AKA EDDIE,

Defendant,

JAMES EDWARD SANDFORD, III, AKA “MALICE”, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________

FOR APPELLEE: TIFFANY H. LEE, Assistant United States Attorney, for Trini E. Ross, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ROBERT W. WOOD, Law Office of Robert W. Wood, Rochester, NY.TIFFANY H. LEE, Assistant United States Attorney, for Trini E. Ross, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.

Appeal from October 18, 2022, and December 9, 2022, orders of the United States

District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the October 18, 2022, and December 9, 2022, orders of the district

court are AFFIRMED.

In 2017, Defendant-Appellant James Edward Sandford, III was convicted after a

jury trial of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possessing a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), and

witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Sandford was sentenced

principally to 156 months’ imprisonment.

2 In 2022, Sandford moved pro se for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(1)(A). In support of that motion, he identified the following circumstances as

sufficiently extraordinary and compelling to warrant a reduction in his sentence: his

minor son and ailing father needed him to provide care, he had been rehabilitated in

prison, he was unable to receive dental care, and the harsh conditions of confinement due

to the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 18, 2022, the district court denied relief,

reasoning that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release principally because

Sandford’s crimes were serious, he remained a danger to the community, and principles

of general deterrence counseled against release. The district court also held that he

failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduction in his

sentence. On December 9, 2022, the district court denied Sandford’s motion for

reconsideration. Sandford, with the aid of counsel, appealed both decisions.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the additional underlying facts, the

procedural history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to

explain our decision to affirm.

“We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Halvon, 26 F.4th 566, 569 (2d Cir. 2022) (per curiam). A

district court abuses its discretion if its ruling is based “on an erroneous view of the law

3 or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence,” or if it cannot be located within the

range of permissible outcomes. United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2009)

(quoting Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008)). Because a defendant seeking

compassionate release on the basis of extraordinary and compelling circumstances must

also demonstrate a favorable assessment of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), a failure on either ground requires affirmance. See Halvon, 26 F.4th at

571.

Sandford argues on appeal that the district court failed to account fully for his son

and father’s caretaking needs, his rehabilitation while in prison, and the harsh conditions

of his confinement due to COVID-19. However, the record firmly establishes that the

district court properly considered each of those circumstances before determining that

Sandford had failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence

reduction. See Halvon, 26 F.4th at 570 (“When reviewing a motion for a sentence

modification, a district court need only adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow

for meaningful appellate review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Sandford also takes issue with the district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a)

factors, arguing that the district court failed to consider the length of his sentence. But

the district court plainly took the length of his sentence into account. It concluded that

4 Sandford’s crimes were serious and that his sentence correctly reflected the severity of

his conduct, the need to deter others, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2)(A)–(C). Each of those conclusions is grounded in the record, and the district

court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reduce Sandford’s sentence in view of

that assessment. See Borden, 564 F.3d at 104.

We have considered Sandford’s remaining arguments and find them to be without

merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court denying compassionate

release and denying reconsideration.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court