United States v. Wilson

• Docket Number: 21-3074
• Decision Date: 21 July 2023
• Parties: United States of America, Appellee v. Louis A. Wilson, also known as Spuds, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

1

United States of America, Appellee
v.
Louis A. Wilson, also known as Spuds, Appellant

No. 21-3074

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

July 21, 2023

Argued September 29, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:96-cr-00319-1)

Anthony F. Shelley argued the cause and filed the memorandum of law and fact and reply for appellant. Alexandra E. Beaulieu entered an appearance.

David P. Saybolt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on appellee's memorandum of law and fact were Chrisellen R. Kolb and John P. Mannarino, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

2

Before: CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge ^[†]

OPINION

CHILDS, Circuit Judge:

Louis Wilson appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 602(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). He argues that intervening changes in law, in combination with other factors, warrant that his motion be granted.

Wilson waited the required time of thirty days after the warden received his initial request for compassionate release, but chose not to bring it on his behalf, to file his own motion in district court. That motion included additional grounds for his release, like his increased weight and a change in sentencing law, not found in his request to the warden. See Req. for Compassionate Release 1-2.

The government maintains that Wilson failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies as to these additional grounds such that the court may not consider Wilson's contentions on the merits. This Court, however, assumes without deciding that Wilson properly exhausted his administrative remedies and nonetheless affirms the district court's denial of Wilson's motion.

We hold that Section 3582(c)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional because Congress did not use express language making it so.

3

And per United States v. Jenkins, 50 F.4th 1185, 1192, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2022), Wilson's change in law arguments cannot constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons, whether alone or in combination with other factors.

I.

A.

A court can grant a defendant compassionate release from prison if they meet certain criteria. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). They must demonstrate, in the court's judgment, an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Id. (c)(1)(A)(i). And that reason must be consistent with the various factors Congress instructs courts to consider when sentencing defendants. Id. (c)(1)(A)(ii); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

But before defendants may file a motion for compassionate release, they must first exhaust their administrative remedies. Two pathways are available for them to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Either is sufficient. Id. First, defendants can "fully exhaust[] all administrative rights [by] appeal[ling] a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf." Id. Alternatively, they may file a motion for compassionate release "30 days from the receipt of such a request [to] the warden." Id.

B.

In 1997, Wilson was convicted of several federal crimes, including killing a federal witness with the intent to prevent him from testifying. Wilson is serving a sentence of life imprisonment plus one consecutive five-year term.

4

On September 18, 2020, Wilson first submitted his request for compassionate release to the warden at Federal...