United States v. Williams

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 4, 2024 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-8034 (D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00076-ABJ-1) BRUCE LOWELL WILLIAMS, (D. Wyo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Bruce Lowell Williams, proceeding pro se, 1 seeks to reverse the

district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18

*The parties do not request oral argument, and it would not materially help us to decide this appeal. Appellee waived its right to file a brief. Accordingly, we have decided the appeal based on the record and the Appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Because Williams proceeds pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally; however, we will not act as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 949 n.10 (10th Cir. 2021). Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 2

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

affirm.

I

On August 4, 2020, Williams pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm as a felon. On October 13, 2020, the

district court sentenced Williams to ninety months of incarceration and

three years of supervised release.

On April 15, 2024, Williams filed a third motion for a sentence

reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing as extraordinary and compelling

reasons for his release: (1) an undiagnosed lung problem, asthma,

hypertension, contracting COVID-19 multiple times, and an overall

deteriorating physical condition, (2) the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) subpar

response to the COVID-19 pandemic and conditions of confinement, and

(3) his excellent disciplinary record and rehabilitation efforts.

On May 9, 2024, the district court denied the motion, noting that

Williams failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting

compassionate release because most of his allegations pertained to

generalized, non-specific conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, and his

claims regarding rehabilitation were insufficient. The district court

declined to consider additional factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because

2 Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 3

Williams had not established an extraordinary and compelling reason to

justify a sentence reduction.

On appeal, Williams argues that the district court abused its

discretion (1) by not examining his health and conditions of confinement

during and after the pandemic or his efforts at rehabilitation; (2) failing to

examine the “totality-of-circumstances test” or post-sentencing mitigating

factors; and (3) failing to consider his “mitigating evidence” (i.e., his exhibits

regarding the BOP’s conditions of confinement). Op. Br. at 6–8.

II

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 when it relies

on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.”

United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013).

Generally, federal courts are forbidden from modifying a term of

imprisonment once imposed, other than a few “narrow exceptions.” Freeman

v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).

Section 3582(c)(1), commonly termed compassionate release, is one of these

exceptions and permits the district court to reduce the term of

imprisonment only if three requirements are met. United States v.

Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2021). The district court must:

3 Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 4

(1) find whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence

reduction”; (2) find whether “such a reduction is consistent with applicable

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission”; and (3) “consider

any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,

the reduction authorized by [steps one and two] is warranted in whole or in

part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. (quoting United

States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1107–08 (6th Cir. 2020)) (internal quotation

marks omitted) (emphasis and alteration in original). The district court can

deny the motion “when any of the three prerequisites listed in

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking” and end the analysis without addressing the

other steps. United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir. 2021)

(quoting United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021)).

Turning to Williams’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that he fails

to present a clear or compelling argument showing how or why the district

court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release.

First, the district court properly found that Williams’s medical

conditions did not—either alone or in the aggregate—meet the Sentencing

Guidelines’ definition 2 of an extraordinary and compelling medical

2 The district court may look to Guideline § 1B1.13 for guidance in

assessing what constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling” reason. United States v. Guerrero, No. 22-3053, 2022 WL 16646565, at *3 (10th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022) (unpublished). The Sentencing Guidelines, although advisory, 4 Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 5

condition warranting release. The district court determined that Williams’s

medical conditions neither substantially diminish his ability to provide self-

care within the correctional facility nor require long-term or specialized

medical care.

Williams does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. Rather, he

focuses his argument on the “inhumane treatment” of incarcerated people

by the BOP during the pandemic (i.e., “excessive [lockdowns] or bologna

sandwiches three times a day for almost two whole years”). Op. Br. at 7–8.

This argument, which pertains to his conditions of confinement, does not

establish that the district court erred in finding that Williams only

presented “generalized grievances with the level of medical staffing and

concerns about some afforded treatment options.” R. I at 155. Thus, the

district court’s factual finding was not clearly erroneous.

define “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to include the following: (1) certain terminal, debilitating, or specialized medical conditions; (2) the defendant is 65 years or older and meets other requirements; (3) the defendant’s family has specified needs for a caregiver; (4) the defendant becomes a victim of sexual or physical abuse while incarcerated; (5) the defendant presents a combination of circumstances listed above; and (6) the defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least ten years. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)–(4). A qualifying medical condition is one that “requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). 5 Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 6

Second, the district court properly determined that non-specific

allegations of pandemic-imposed prison conditions fail to establish an

extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. As the

district court correctly noted, Williams failed to distinguish his own

conditions from those of his fellow inmates or show why he was at a greater

health risk at the prison where he is housed, especially when the COVID-

19 national emergency ended on April 10, 2023. See Act of Apr. 10, 2023,

Pub. L. No. 118-3, 137 Stat. 6 (2023).

Finally, the district court correctly found that Williams, who is fully

vaccinated, failed to demonstrate he has “issues or maladies that will place

him at greater risk if he contracts COVID-19.” R. I at 158; see also

Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032 (concluding the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying a motion for a sentence reduction because, among

other things, the movant was receiving treatment for his medical conditions

during the pandemic).

Ultimately, Williams’s medical conditions and concerns about

COVID-19 did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for his

release. As a result, the district court did not err when it determined that

it did not need to address his record of rehabilitation or the § 3553(a)

factors. McGee, 992 F.3d at 1043.

6 Appellate Case: 24-8034 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 7

III

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Williams’s

motion for compassionate release. We GRANT Williams’s motion to proceed

on appeal in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge