USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TENNYSON HARRIS, a/k/a Teddy, a/k/a Mark T,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:00-cr-00253-PJM-3)
Submitted: October 23, 2023 Decided: October 31, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tennyson Harris, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Tennyson Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). “A sentencing court may not, as
a general matter, ‘modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.’” United
States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 194 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “But
a district court may reduce a sentence through a motion for compassionate release.” United
States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for 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. “Under this standard, ‘this Court may not
substitute its judgment for that of the district court.’” United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826,
832 (4th Cir. 2022). We review a district court’s interpretation of the scope of
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) de novo. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022).
“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, 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). “Only after
this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
“The factors applicable to the determination of what circumstances can constitute
an extraordinary and compelling reason for release from prison are complex and not easily
summarized.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 197. “[T]he inquiry is multifaceted and must take
into account the totality of the relevant circumstances.” Id. at 198. While “a compassionate
release motion cannot be used to challenge the validity of a defendant’s conviction or
sentence,” a defendant may argue in a compassionate release motion “that a change in the
sentencing law that occurred after [sentencing] (but did not apply retroactively) merit[s] a
reduction in [the sentence] to conform to that change.” Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 270-72;
United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 286 (4th Cir. 2020).
“When Congress authorized district courts, as a matter of discretion, to release an
inmate from prison based on extraordinary and compelling reasons, it did so to introduce
compassion as a factor in assessing ongoing terms of imprisonment, authorizing a district
court to give greater weight to an inmate’s personal circumstances—when sufficiently
extraordinary and compelling—than to society’s interests in the defendant’s continued
incarceration and the finality of judgments.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 197. “[M]otions for
relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) ask courts to balance the severity of the inmate’s personal
circumstances, on the one hand, against the needs for incarceration, on the other.” Id.
“In any event, if a court finds that a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and
compelling reasons, it is still not required to grant the defendant’s motion for a sentence
reduction.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2021). “Rather, it must
‘consider[]’ the § 3553(a) sentencing factors ‘to the extent that they are applicable’ in
deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s term of
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
imprisonment.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). In determining whether a district
court abused its discretion in weighing sentencing factors, “it weighs against an abuse of
discretion—and is viewed as ‘significant’—when the same judge who sentenced the
defendant rules on the compassionate release motion.” Bethea, 54 F.4th at 834. Moreover,
“district courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given
each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020).
We presume that a district court sufficiently considered relevant factors in deciding
a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021).
“Although a district court is not required to address each of a defendant’s arguments for a
reduced sentence, just how much of an explanation is required depends upon the narrow
circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 170. “[T]he touchstone in assessing the
sufficiency of the district court’s explanation must be whether the district court set forth
enough to satisfy our court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful
appellate review.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We limit our review to issues raised in the informal brief, 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson
v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), and will not generally consider issues raised
for the first time on appeal, United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311, 318 (4th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TENNYSON HARRIS, a/k/a Teddy, a/k/a Mark T,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:00-cr-00253-PJM-3)
Submitted: October 23, 2023 Decided: October 31, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tennyson Harris, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Tennyson Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). “A sentencing court may not, as
a general matter, ‘modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.’” United
States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 194 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “But
a district court may reduce a sentence through a motion for compassionate release.” United
States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for 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. “Under this standard, ‘this Court may not
substitute its judgment for that of the district court.’” United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826,
832 (4th Cir. 2022). We review a district court’s interpretation of the scope of
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) de novo. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022).
“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, 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). “Only after
this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
“The factors applicable to the determination of what circumstances can constitute
an extraordinary and compelling reason for release from prison are complex and not easily
summarized.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 197. “[T]he inquiry is multifaceted and must take
into account the totality of the relevant circumstances.” Id. at 198. While “a compassionate
release motion cannot be used to challenge the validity of a defendant’s conviction or
sentence,” a defendant may argue in a compassionate release motion “that a change in the
sentencing law that occurred after [sentencing] (but did not apply retroactively) merit[s] a
reduction in [the sentence] to conform to that change.” Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 270-72;
United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 286 (4th Cir. 2020).
“When Congress authorized district courts, as a matter of discretion, to release an
inmate from prison based on extraordinary and compelling reasons, it did so to introduce
compassion as a factor in assessing ongoing terms of imprisonment, authorizing a district
court to give greater weight to an inmate’s personal circumstances—when sufficiently
extraordinary and compelling—than to society’s interests in the defendant’s continued
incarceration and the finality of judgments.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 197. “[M]otions for
relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) ask courts to balance the severity of the inmate’s personal
circumstances, on the one hand, against the needs for incarceration, on the other.” Id.
“In any event, if a court finds that a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and
compelling reasons, it is still not required to grant the defendant’s motion for a sentence
reduction.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2021). “Rather, it must
‘consider[]’ the § 3553(a) sentencing factors ‘to the extent that they are applicable’ in
deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s term of
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
imprisonment.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). In determining whether a district
court abused its discretion in weighing sentencing factors, “it weighs against an abuse of
discretion—and is viewed as ‘significant’—when the same judge who sentenced the
defendant rules on the compassionate release motion.” Bethea, 54 F.4th at 834. Moreover,
“district courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given
each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020).
We presume that a district court sufficiently considered relevant factors in deciding
a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021).
“Although a district court is not required to address each of a defendant’s arguments for a
reduced sentence, just how much of an explanation is required depends upon the narrow
circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 170. “[T]he touchstone in assessing the
sufficiency of the district court’s explanation must be whether the district court set forth
enough to satisfy our court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful
appellate review.” Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We limit our review to issues raised in the informal brief, 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson
v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), and will not generally consider issues raised
for the first time on appeal, United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311, 318 (4th Cir.
2021) (citing United States v. Muth, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)). But, we may consider
an issue that was not raised in the district court in very limited circumstances “where refusal
to consider the newly-raised issue would be plain error or would result in a fundamental
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6676 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/31/2023 Pg: 5 of 5
miscarriage of justice.” Muth, 1 F.3d at 250. We liberally construe pro se filings. Wall v.
Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022).
We have reviewed the record and Harris’ issues on appeal, and we find no reversible
error by the district court. The district court considered Harris’ arguments, concluded that
he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release,
and sufficiently explained its decision. On appeal, Harris fails to show any error or abuse
of discretion by the district court. The district court did not act arbitrarily or irrationally;
it followed the statutory requirements; and it conducted the necessary analysis.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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