United States v. Stephens
This text of United States v. Stephens (United States v. Stephens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
22-1309-cr United States v. Stephens
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held 2 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 3 on the 10th day of July, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNY CHIN, 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 EUNICE C. LEE, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 Appellee, 15 16 v. 22-1309-cr 17 18 19 JAMES T. STEPHENS, 20 21 Defendant-Appellant. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 1 For Defendant-Appellant: Jay S. Ovsiovitch, Federal Public 2 Defender’s Office, Western District 3 of New York, Rochester, NY. 4 5 For Appellee: Charles M. Kruly, Assistant United 6 States Attorney, for Trini E. Ross, 7 United States Attorney for the 8 Western District of New York, 9 Rochester, NY. 10 11 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New
12 York (Wolford, C.J.).
13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
14 DECREED that the June 6, 2022 order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
15 Defendant-Appellant James T. Stephens, through counsel, appeals the district court’s
16 denial of his pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district
17 court held that Stephens failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting early
18 release and that the applicable § 3553(a) factors did not justify a sentence reduction. We assume
19 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal,
20 to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
21 In January 2020, Stephens pleaded guilty to a two-count information charging him with (1)
22 possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and (2)
23 possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). These
24 charges stemmed from criminal conduct Stephens committed while on parole for a state felony
25 offense and involved the distribution of multiple illegal substances and discovery of two loaded
26 firearms, neither of which he possessed legally. He was sentenced principally to 80 months’
27 imprisonment.
2 1 In April 2022, Stephens, acting pro se, moved for a sentence reduction pursuant to
2 § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that his medical conditions, including asthma and idiopathic
3 thrombocytopenia (a blood disorder), presented a risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19
4 at his prison facility, and that he had engaged in good behavior and participated in various prison
5 programs and services (such as drug treatment) during the period of his incarceration.
6 On June 6, 2022, the district court denied the motion, finding first that Stephens had not
7 demonstrated the requisite extraordinary or compelling reasons to justify a sentence reduction
8 under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court acknowledged that Stephens’s medical records
9 established health conditions that presented a risk of severe consequences from COVID-19.
10 However, because of his refusal to obtain an available vaccine and because the virus was then
11 under control at his prison facility, it rejected Stephens’s argument that he had demonstrated
12 extraordinary or compelling reasons for his release.
13 The district court also determined that the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed
14 against a sentence reduction. In declining to grant early release, the court considered the §
15 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and Stephens’s criminal
16 history. Looking at “the underlying nature of [his] conviction, coupled with his criminal history,”
17 the district court wrote that it “continue[d] to believe that the 80-month prison sentence was
18 reasonable and appropriate.” Joint App’x at 59. In support of its conclusion, the district court
19 further explained that, while on parole for his state felony offense, Stephens “was involved in the
20 ongoing distribution of multiple dangerous illegal substances, including fentanyl” and “[w]hen
21 law enforcement searched his residence in June 2019 they seized two loaded firearms, despite the
22 fact that it was illegal for [him] to possess them.” Id. And despite Stephens’s contention below
3 1 that he had demonstrated good behavior, with which the district court agreed and for which it
2 “commend[ed] him,” it ultimately decided that “[t]hese actions may place him in a better position
3 at the time he is released back into society, but they do not justify his early release.” Id. In the
4 end, the court ruled that compassionate release would be inconsistent with the § 3553(a) factors
5 and “would seriously undermine the fairness and purpose of the original sentence.” Id. at 60.
6 A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment by granting a motion
7 brought under § 3582(c)(1)(A) if (1) the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies, (2) a
8 sentence reduction is consistent with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (3) extraordinary and
9 compelling circumstances warrant a reduction. United States v. Keitt, 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d Cir.
10 2021). We review the denial of such a motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jones,
11 17 F.4th 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2021). Under this deferential standard, we will affirm unless the district
12 court has made an erroneous legal ruling, a clearly erroneous factual assessment, or has otherwise
13 issued a decision outside “the range of permissible decisions.” Keitt, 21 F.4th at 71 (quoting
14 United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 122 (2d Cir. 2021)).
15 Here, the district court reasonably determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against a
16 sentence reduction. And Stephens’s brief does not challenge the district court’s denial of the
17 motion on this ground. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis
18 of the § 3553(a) factors, we affirm without deciding whether Stephens has made a showing of
19 extraordinary and compelling reasons. Keitt, 21 F.4th at 69 (“[W]e today make clear that when a
20 district court denies a defendant’s motion under § 3852(c)(1)(A) in sole reliance on the applicable
21 § 3553(a) sentencing factors, it need not also determine whether the defendant has shown
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Stephens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stephens-ca2-2023.