Opinion
21-6116
06-28-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 29, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00310-GLR-1)
Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. On appeal, Cohen principally argues that the district court failed to adequately address his arguments in support of compassionate release. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
To the extent Cohen seeks to relitigate challenges to his sentencing proceedings that he unsuccessfully raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we find no error in the district court's order on this basis.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision on a motion for compassionate release. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021); see United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing standard). In ruling on a compassionate-release motion, "a district court is not required to address each of a defendant's arguments for a reduced sentence" or "provide an exhaustive explanation analyzing every § 3553(a) factor." United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2021). Nevertheless, the court must provide an explanation sufficient "to allow for meaningful appellate review" in light of the particular circumstances of the case. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[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[.]" United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 199 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When a case is "relative[ly] simpl[e]," the explanation requirement is satisfied if the order shows that "the district court was aware of the arguments, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive reason" for denying the motion. High, 997 F.3d at 191 (cleaned up); see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). However, when a defendant "present[s] a significant amount of post-sentencing mitigation evidence, . . . a more robust and detailed explanation [is] required." High, 997 F.3d at 190 (cleaned up).
Here, the district court determined that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. Although the district court identified particular sentencing factors as supporting its decision, it did not acknowledge or address Cohen's detailed arguments in support of a sentence reduction.
The district court did not have the benefit of High, Jenkins, or Hargrove when it decided Cohen's motion.
Cohen's compassionate-release motion was not simple, and the judge who denied the motion was not the judge who originally sentenced him. Despite Cohen's presentation of significant postsentencing mitigation evidence, including materials relevant to his positive postsentencing conduct, the court's explanation does not reflect Cohen's arguments regarding these issues. On this record, we are unable to conclude that the district court "considered" Cohen's arguments in favor of compassionate release and had "a reasoned basis" for its decision to deny relief. Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (cleaned up). Moreover, the district court's failure to address Cohen's multifaceted arguments more explicitly precludes "meaningful appellate review" of its decision. High, 997 F.3d at 190 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings. We express no view as to the merits of Cohen's compassionate-release motion. 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.
We also express no view as to whether Cohen exhausted his administrative remedies, leaving any consideration of that issue to the district court in the first instance. See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 130 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that compassionate-release exhaustion requirement is nonjurisdictional, claim-processing rule); United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017) (discussing appropriate treatment of claim-processing rules).
VACATED AND REMANDED