United States v. Elston
United States v. Elston
Opinion
20-3220-cr United States v. Elston
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 14th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 4 5 PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 12 Appellee, 13 14 v. No. 20-3220-cr 15 16 CALVIN ELSTON, 17 18 Defendant-Appellant.* 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Calvin Elston, pro se, Ayer, MA 2 3 FOR APPELLEE: Katherine A. Gregory, 4 Assistant United States 5 Attorney, for Trini E. Ross, 6 United States Attorney for the 7 Western District of New York, 8 Buffalo, NY
9 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western
10 District of New York (Richard J. Arcara, Judge).
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
12 AND DECREED that the August 12, 2020 order of the District Court is
13 AFFIRMED.
14 Calvin Elston, pro se, appeals from an August 12, 2020 order of the United
15 States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.) denying his
16 motion for compassionate release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In 2019
17 the District Court sentenced Elston to 235 months’ imprisonment for conspiring
18 to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl. On May 18, 2020, Elston filed a
19 counseled motion for compassionate release, arguing that he was at heightened
20 risk of serious illness if he were to contract COVID-19. In a text order, the
21 District Court denied the motion. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
2 1 underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as
2 necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
3 Under the relevant compassionate release provision, a district court may
4 reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment, up to and including release from
5 prison, only if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
6 reduction.”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Even if “extraordinary and compelling”
7 circumstances exist, a district court must also consider “the factors set forth in
8 section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.”
Id.§ 3582(c)(1)(A); United
9 States v. Jones,
17 F.4th 371, 374(2d Cir. 2021). “We typically review the denial
10 of a motion for a discretionary sentence reduction for abuse of discretion.”
11 United States v. Holloway,
956 F.3d 660, 664(2d Cir. 2020).
12 The District Court assumed that Elston established extraordinary and
13 compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, but it denied his motion based on
14 its analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. What weight to afford to any particular
15 § 3553(a) factor is a matter firmly committed to the District Court’s discretion,
16 and we do not second-guess the weight a court places on any given factor. See
17 United States v. Capanelli,
479 F.3d 163, 165(2d Cir. 2007). Here the District
3 1 Court focused especially on Elston’s leadership role in a large-scale narcotics
2 conspiracy, concluding that the nature of Elston’s offense and the danger to the
3 community that his release would pose counseled against release.
4 We reject Elston’s argument that the District Court was precluded from
5 considering whether Elston posed a danger to the community; to the contrary, it
6 is a factor that § 3553(a) required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C.
7 § 3553(a)(2)(C). Finally, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion
8 altogether instead of considering a shorter reduction of sentence, as Elston
9 contends, especially since Elston failed to present that possibility to the District
10 Court in the first instance. Nothing in this order prevents Elston from renewing
11 his request for a shorter sentence reduction before the District Court.
12 To summarize, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it
13 reviewed the relevant § 3553(a) factors and concluded that they weigh against
14 release or a reduction of sentence. Its denial was not based on an erroneous view
15 of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, and it falls neatly
16 “within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Keitt,
21 F.4th 67, 71
17 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted).
4 1 We have considered Elston’s remaining arguments and conclude that they
2 are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court is
3 AFFIRMED.
4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 6 7
5
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished