United States v. Todd Bell ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7136
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TODD BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00219-RDB-3)
Submitted: May 30, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Todd Bell appeals from the district court’s order and amended judgment granting
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and reducing his
sentence to 332 months’ imprisonment. Bell sought a reduction to time served, asserting
that the elimination of the “stacking” of sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) pursuant to the
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”), was an
extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. We affirm.
Courts may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and we review a district court’s
ruling on the motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329
(4th Cir. 2021). “[D]istrict courts are empowered to consider any extraordinary and
compelling reason for release that a defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981
F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). But a reduction may not
be granted without first considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the extent
applicable. Kibble, 992 F.3d at 331. District courts have “broad discretion” in analyzing
the relevant sentencing factors. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834 (4th Cir. 2022)
(internal quotation marks omitted). And “it weighs against an abuse of discretion—and is
viewed as significant—when the same judge [as in this case] who sentenced the defendant
rules on the compassionate release motion.” Id. “[T]here’s a strong indication that the
judge knows of the defendant’s circumstances, both favorable and unfavorable, and
considers the totality of the record when assessing whether a different sentence is now
warranted.” Id.2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
In McCoy, we held that the district court may treat “the severity of the defendants’
§ 924(c) sentences and the extent of the disparity between the defendants’ sentences and
those provided for under the First Step Act” as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for
compassionate release. McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286. We acknowledged that Congress did not
make the changes to the stacking rules retroactively applicable and thus does not “mandate
more lenient sentences across the board but instead gives new discretion to the courts to
consider leniency.” Id. at 288. We must determine whether the court set forth enough to
show “that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
its own legal decisionmaking authority[.]” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th
Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a reduction greater than the one granted by the court.
The district judge who considered Bell’s motion was the same judge who originally
sentenced him, a factor that is significant in determining whether the court properly
exercised its discretion. Id. at 189. The court also explicitly considered Bell’s
rehabilitative efforts and the sentences received by his codefendants, but concluded that
those factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the convictions, Bell’s criminal history,
and the risk of recidivism.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7136 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and amended judgment and deny
Bell’s motion for relief from judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED
4