Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-25-2021

Case Style:

United States of America v. FLORENCIO SANTANA

Case Number: 21-6104

Judge: PER CURIAM Before AGEE, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Defendant's Attorney:


Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense Lawyer Directory


Description:

Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a denial of his motion for compassionate release.



The district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” We
review the district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). To commit an abuse
of discretion, “a district court must act arbitrarily or irrationally, fail to consider judicially
recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, rely on erroneous factual or legal
premises, or commit an error of law.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). In addition, the district court’s consideration of evidence is subject to harmless
error review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, such that “in order to find a
district court's error harmless, we need only be able to say ‘with fair assurance, after
pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the
judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’” United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d
365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 325 (4th Cir.
1995)).
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in either failing to consider
the evidence proffered by Santana or in misstating it. Contrary to the court’s ruling that
3
Santana “has not set forth any plans for living arrangements,” Santana specifically stated
that he would be living with his girlfriend. Further, while the court noted that Santana had
not provided work arrangements, his girlfriend’s letter stated that she could support him.
Admittedly, Santana did not detail his post-release plans and only briefly addressed them
in his motion; likewise, his girlfriend’s letter focused primarily on Santana’s health.
Nonetheless, the district court’s statement was clearly incorrect. Because the court relied
upon an erroneous factual premise, the district court abused its discretion.
The Government contends, however, that the court’s error was harmless, and we
agree. The district court explicitly stated that the seriousness of Santana’s crime was of
particular concern. In addition, when the district court summarized its findings at the end
of its order, it relied on the nature of the offense and the small amount of time Santana had
served to conclude that release was not warranted. The court also noted that Santana had
already received a variance to the mandatory statutory minimum sentence.
The court’s one-sentence statement regarding Santana’s lack of post-release plans
was the last factor considered and appeared to be the least important. Further, Santana’s
release plan depended on the continued support of his girlfriend but contained no details
regarding her financial status. Given Santana’s grave and far-reaching criminal conduct,
the short time that he had so far been incarcerated, and the brevity of the relevant evidence,
4
we conclude that the district court was not substantially swayed by its belief that Santana
had not provided a plan for his release. As such, the district court’s error was harmless.

Outcome: Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions area adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: