United States v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 30 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-2768,20-2768
• Citation: 12 F.4th 255
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Eric ANDREWS, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

12 F.4th 255

UNITED STATES of America

v.Eric ANDREWS, Appellant

No. 20-2768

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued: March 16, 2021

Filed: August 30, 2021

Laurence S. Shtasel, Blank Rome, One Logan Square, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, John Gleeson [Argued], Marisa R. Taney, Debevoise & Plimpton, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Counsel for Appellant Eric Andrews

Robert A. Zauzmer [Argued], Office of United States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Counsel for Appellee United States of America

Before: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PORTER, Circuit Judge.

Eric Andrews is serving a 312-year sentence for committing a series of armed robberies when he was nineteen. After Congress enacted the First Step Act, Andrews filed a compassionate-release motion and argued that his case presented "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We will affirm the District Court's denial of Andrews's motion.

I

During a one-month period in 2005, Eric Andrews and a group of his confederates robbed thirteen North Philadelphia businesses at gunpoint. Andrews was charged with the thirteen robberies, conspiring to commit the robberies, and brandishing a firearm during the completed crimes. After trial, a jury found Andrews guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to 312 years’ imprisonment: 57 months for his role in the robberies and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and 3,684 months for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Andrews received such an elevated sentence in large part because, at the time, each additional § 924(c) count carried a 25-year mandatory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) (2006) (amended by First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 403(a), 132 Stat. 5194, 5221–22).¹

In 2018, Congress changed that by passing the First Step Act. The Act revised § 924(c) so that the 25-year mandatory minimum for subsequent offenses would not apply unless the defendant already had a final conviction for a § 924(c) charge at the time of the offense. See First Step Act § 403(a); United States v. Davis , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2324 n.1, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019) ("[O]nly a second § 924(c) violation committed ‘after a prior [ § 924(c) ] conviction ... has become final’ will trigger the 25-year minimum."). Had Andrews been sentenced today, his consecutive convictions for brandishing a firearm would each generate a statutory minimum of 7 years, resulting in a 91-year sentence. But Congress specifically chose not to apply the statutory change to people who had already been sentenced under the old version: "This section, and the amendments made by this section, shall apply to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment." Id. § 403(b). Because Andrews was sentenced in 2006, he could not receive a reduced sentence under the new sentencing scheme. See United States v. Hodge , 948 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir. 2020) ("[T]he new § 924(c) mandatory minimum does not apply to defendants initially sentenced before the First Step Act's enactment.").

However, Andrews was still able to move for a modified sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He was able to do so because of another innovation of the First Step Act—prisoner-initiated motions for compassionate release. See First Step Act § 603(b). Previously, all motions for compassionate release had to be made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. But the First Step Act created an avenue for prisoners to file their own motions in federal court. Id.

The First Step Act added the procedure for prisoner-initiated motions while leaving the rest of the compassionate-release framework unchanged. So just like Bureau-initiated motions, a prisoner's motion may be granted if the court finds that the sentence reduction is (1) warranted by "extraordinary and compelling reasons"; (2) "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission"; and (3) supported by the traditional sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they are applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

In support of his motion, Andrews pointed to the recent changes to the § 924(c) mandatory minimums and the duration of his sentence. He also noted his rehabilitation in prison, his relatively young age at the time of his offense, the government's decision to charge him with thirteen § 924(c) counts,² and his alleged susceptibility to COVID-19. Andrews claimed that, together, those six reasons were extraordinary and compelling under the compassionate-release statute.

Before the District Court could consider whether the proposed reasons collectively satisfied the extraordinary-and-compelling requirement it first had to determine what "extraordinary and compelling" meant under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The government claimed that the court was bound by a Commission policy statement describing "extraordinary and compelling reasons" as: (1) medical conditions, (2) complications in old age, (3) family circumstances, and (4) "other reasons" as determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. See U.S. Sent'g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1 (U.S. Sent'g Comm'n 2018). The court disagreed, concluding that, by its terms, the policy statement applied only to Bureau-initiated motions. United States v. Andrews , 480 F. Supp. 3d 669, 676 (E.D. Pa. 2020). Indeed, the policy statement begins with the words "[u]pon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons," U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and its commentary specifically states that a "reduction under this policy statement may be granted only upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons," id. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.4 (emphasis added). The court thus concluded that the policy statement was "inapplicable" to prisoner-initiated motions. Andrews , 480 F. Supp. 3d at 677. As a result, the court concluded that it was free to interpret "extraordinary and compelling" for itself and consider reasons beyond the four categories listed in the policy statement. Id.

Even so, the District Court noted that its inquiry was not boundless. The inapplicability of the policy statement did not mean, for example, that all of Andrews's proposed reasons fell within the statutory meaning of "extraordinary and compelling." The court concluded that two of the proposed reasons—the duration of Andrews's sentence and the nonretroactive changes to mandatory minimums—could not be extraordinary and compelling as a matter of law. Id. at 678–80. The court also concluded that, although it was not bound by the policy statement, the policy statement could still provide helpful guidance in determining what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons. Id. at 683–84. So, utilizing the text, dictionary definitions, the policy statement,³ and existing precedent, the court determined that Andrews's four remaining reasons collectively fell short of being extraordinary and compelling under the statute. Id. at 682–88. Andrews timely appealed.

II

The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise de novo review over the District Court's interpretation of statutes and policy statements. See Gibbs v. Cross , 160 F.3d 962, 964 (3d Cir. 1998). But a grant of compassionate release is a purely discretionary decision. United States v. Pawlowski , 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). We therefore review a district court's decision to deny a compassionate-release motion for abuse of discretion. Id. Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will not disturb the court's determination unless we are left with "a definite and firm conviction that [it] committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached." Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oddi v. Ford Motor Co. , 234 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2000) ).

III

A

The first issue is whether the District Court was bound by the Commission's policy statement. We conclude that it was not.

As the District Court noted, the text of the policy statement explicitly limits its application to Bureau-initiated motions. Thus, according to its plain language, the existing policy statement⁴ is not applicable—and not binding—for courts considering prisoner-initiated motions. In reaching this conclusion, we align with nearly every circuit court to consider the issue. See United States v. Brooker , 976 F.3d 228, 235 (2d Cir. 2020) ; United States v. McCoy , 981 F.3d 271, 282 (4th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Elias , 984 F.3d 516, 519–20 (6th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178, 1180–81 (7th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. McGee , 992 F.3d 1035, 1050 (10th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Long , 997 F.3d 342, 355 (D.C. Cir. 2021). But see United States v. Bryant , 996 F.3d 1243, 1247–48 (11th Cir. 2021).

B

That leads us to the second issue: whether, in interpreting and applying the phrase "extraordinary and compelling reasons," the District Court erred. We conclude that it did not.

To start, the District Court did not err when it consulted the text, dictionary definitions, and the policy statement to form a working definition of "extraordinary and compelling reasons." Given that the compassionate-release statute does not define "extraordinary and compelling reasons," the court looked to those resources to give shape to the otherwise amorphous phrase. That was not error. "We look to dictionary definitions to determine the ordinary meaning of a word ... with reference to its statutory text." Bonkowski v. Oberg Indus., Inc. , 787 F.3d 190, 200 (3d Cir. 2015). And courts may consider an extrinsic source like the policy statement if, like here, it "s...