United States v. Davis ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 21-3206 Document: 010110647118 FILEDPage: 1
Date Filed: 02/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 18, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 21-3206
(D.C. No. 6:11-CR-10194-EFM-1)
CHICO C. DAVIS, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Accordingly,
we order the case submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-3206 Document: 010110647118 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 2
Chico C. Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a
sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Exercising
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
In 2012, Davis pleaded guilty to ten counts of being a felon illegally in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and several counts of
distributing controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Based on the
serious and wide-ranging nature of the underlying convictions, as well as Davis’s
exceedingly extensive criminal history, the district court imposed upon Davis a
lengthy sentence. 1 Davis filed two overlapping § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions for
compassionate release, which the district court considered in tandem. His
motions noted he suffered from multiple serious health conditions, which
heightened his risk for complications should he contract COVID-19. He also
asserted he had taken steps in prison to improve himself. The district court
denied Davis’s motions in a written order.
A defendant cannot receive a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
unless three prerequisites are satisfied: (1) there are “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” for a reduction; (2) a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and (3) based on its
1
As the district court noted, after his convictions became final, Davis’s
sentences have been reduced for various reasons. Davis’s current projected
release date is October 23, 2032.
-2-
Appellate Case: 21-3206 Document: 010110647118 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 3
discretionary consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the district court concludes
“the reduction authorized by steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part
under the particular circumstances of the case.” United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th
932, 938 (10th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). The court does not need to address
these three prerequisites in any particular order and it must deny a sentence
reduction if any of the three prerequisites is lacking. See id. at 942-43. Here, the
district court concluded Davis failed to satisfy the third prerequisite for relief.
On appeal, Davis argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
compassionate release based on his criminal history without balancing that history
against his current characteristics. He also asserts the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to grant him relief.
Davis is simply wrong in asserting the district court limited its analysis of
the § 3553 factors to his criminal history. It is certainly true that the district
court, quite reasonably, placed great emphasis on those factors. It noted the
extensive nature of both Davis’s criminal history and of the numerous crimes
underlying his current sentence of incarceration. It then moved on, however, to
note that the sentencing court undertook an extensive analysis of the § 3553(a)
factors and concluded, on balance, that only a lengthy sentence would protect the
public from future criminal activity on the part of Davis. The district court then
-3-
Appellate Case: 21-3206 Document: 010110647118 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 4
recognized Davis has served less than half of his sentence. Ultimately, the
district court concluded as follows:
Reducing Defendant’s sentence to time served would be a significant
reduction and would not reflect the seriousness of Defendant’s
criminal conduct nor provide adequate deterrence or appropriate
punishment. Even though Defendant has serious health conditions,
and the contraction of COVID-19 may make him more susceptible to
serious health complications, reducing his sentence does not further
sentencing objectives.
Thus, in contrast to Davis’s assertion, the record makes patently clear that the
district court properly analyzed whether “the reduction authorized” by the
extraordinary and compelling reasons set out in Davis’s motion “is warranted in
whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Hald, 8 F.4th at
938 (quotation omitted). Furthermore, Davis does not come close to showing the
district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion. The
district court’s determination that the need to protect the public from further
criminal activity on the part of Davis outweighs the health risks to Davis from
continued incarceration is both reasoned and reasonable.
The order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
denying Davis’s motion for compassionate release is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-