Opinion
1:14-cr-214-20
12-29-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RUDIUS BROWN, Defendant.
ORDER
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rudius Brown moved for a sentence reduction under the compassionate-release statute. Brown's motion argued, in part, that a nonretroactive sentencing-law change presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief.
Doc. 1326. Defendant later supplemented his pro se motion. Doc. 1335.
When Brown filed his motion, the Sixth Circuit had issued conflicting decisions about whether district courts could consider nonretroactive sentencing-law changes when deciding compassionate-release motions. But the en banc Sixth Circuit appeared ready to resolve the intracircuit split in United States v. McCall.
See United States v. McCall, 21-3400, 2022 WL 17843865, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2022) (describing the split).
United States v. McCall, 29 F.4th 816 (6th Cir. 2022) (mem.) (granting rehearing en banc).
On September 13, 2022, the Court granted the Government's motion to hold Brown's motion in abeyance pending the Sixth Circuit's McCall decision.
Doc. 1338.
On December 22, 2022, the Sixth Circuit issued its McCall decision. The en banc court held that nonretroactive sentencing-law changes do not provide extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant compassionate release.
McCall, 2022 WL 17843865 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2022).
McCall, 2022 WL 17843865, at *5-11 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2022)
Now, the Court LIFTS THE STAY on Brown's motion and ORDERS the Government to respond to Brown's motion within 21 days of this order. The Court further ORDERS Brown to file any reply within 14 days of the Government's response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.