23-6150 United States v. Padilla (Robinson)

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 23rd day of September, two thousand twenty- four. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 BETH ROBINSON, 8 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 Appellee, 15 16 v. 17 No. 23-6150 18 JOSHUA QUAZAIN ROBINSON, 19 20 Defendant-Appellant, 1 JUAN PADILLA, LUIS MIGUEL SANCHEZ, 2 JONATHAN ISIDRO SANCHEZ, LUIS 3 JONATHAN SANCHEZ, JARVIS WEBB, JOSE 4 ABREU, 5 6 Defendants. * 7 8 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 FOR APPELLANT: Joshua Quazain Robinson, pro se, 12 Ray Brook, NY. 13 14 FOR APPELLEE: Jo Ann M. Navickas, Andrés 15 Palacio, Assistant United States 16 Attorneys for Breon Peace, United 17 States Attorney for the Eastern 18 District of New York, Brooklyn, 19 NY. 20

21 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern

22 District of New York (Garaufis, Judge).

23 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

24 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order denying compassionate release is

25 AFFIRMED.

26 Defendant-appellant Joshua Quazain Robinson is serving a 121-month

* The Clerk’s office is directed to amend the caption as reflected above. 1 federal sentence arising out of a 2012 conviction for a heroin distribution

2 conspiracy. In 2022, proceeding pro se, he moved for compassionate release

3 under

(c)(1)(A). The district court denied his motion because

4 Robinson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and had not otherwise

5 demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for release or that the 18

(a) sentencing factors weighed in favor of a sentence reduction. See

7 generally United States v. Robinson, No. 10-CR-789 (NGG),

8 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining

9 facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal, which we discuss only to

10 the extent necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

11 We review the denial of a motion for a discretionary sentence reduction

12 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Keitt,

(2d Cir. 2021). A

13 district court abuses its discretion if its ruling is based on an erroneous view of

14 the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or if the decision

15 cannot be located within the range of permissible outcomes.

16 A district court may grant a “compassionate release” motion and lower a

17 federal prisoner’s sentence if (1) the defendant has exhausted available

3 1 administrative remedies, (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a

2 reduction, and (3) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor a reduction. 18 U.S.C.

3 § 3582(c)(1)(A). A motion for compassionate release fails if any one of these

4 factors is not satisfied. As a result, we generally must affirm if the district court

5 properly exercised its discretion in deciding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed

6 against release, regardless of whether there are extraordinary and compelling

7 factors or if the movant has exhausted administrative remedies. See United

8 States v. Halvon,

(2d Cir. 2022).

9 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding

10 that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against relief, which provides an independent

11 ground to affirm. The court determined that contrary to Robinson’s argument,

12 there was no egregious sentencing disparity between him and his codefendants,

13 with whom he was not similarly situated due to their generally less extensive

14 criminal histories. See Robinson,

, at *5. Robinson’s

15 “substantial criminal history that includes acts of violence” and the “current

16 offense involv[ing] serious drug trafficking violations” also counseled against a

17 reduction.

. The district court did not credit his claims of “specific

4 1 rehabilitative strides” because he had not provided sufficient evidence of

2 changed circumstances or progress.

While Robinson disputes these

3 conclusions, he does not persuasively show that the district court’s decision was

4 outside the bounds of permissible outcomes. See Keitt,

.

5 Robinson also argues that under Apprendi v. New Jersey,

(2000),

6 and Alleyne v. United States,

(2013), the district court miscalculated his

7 total offense level. To the extent this is relevant to the § 3553(a) inquiry, his

8 argument fails because those cases do not prevent factfinding at sentencing that

9 affects guidelines calculations as opposed to statutory minimums.

10 We have considered Robinson’s remaining arguments and find them to be

11 unpersuasive. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court denying

12 compassionate release.

13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

5