NOT PRECEDENTIAL

CLD-204 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-2166 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JEFFREY HOLLAND, Appellant ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 1:01-cr-00195-002) District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani ____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 24, 2023 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 26, 2023) __________

OPINION* __________ PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Jeffrey Holland appeals from the District Court’s order denying

his motion for compassionate release pursuant to

(c)(1)(A). The

Government has filed a motion to summarily affirm the District Court’s order. For the

following reasons, we will summarily affirm.

Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we recite only the facts

and procedural history relevant to our disposition. In 2002, a federal jury found Jeffrey

Holland guilty of trafficking 50 grams or more of crack in violation of

(a); using a firearm while trafficking drugs in violation of

(c)(2); and

other offenses. Holland was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences, to be followed

by a 60-month consecutive sentence for the firearms conviction. We affirmed on direct

appeal. See United States v. Holland,

(3d Cir. 2003). Thereafter,

Holland filed several unsuccessful § 2255 motions, § 2241 petitions, and § 2244

applications, as well as two unsuccessful motions for a sentence reduction.1

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 We are also aware of two pending appeals, see C.A. Nos. 22-2763 and 23-2044, but neither has any impact on the current record.

2 The present appeal concerns Holland’s September 16, 2022 motion for

compassionate release. Dkt No. 579. In that motion, Holland alleged that judicial

misconduct, including evidence of the trial judge’s influence on the jury’s verdict,

constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Holland

also appears to have alleged that the evidence of quantity or weight of the drugs was

insufficient to support a conviction, which constituted an extraordinary and compelling

reason for release. He later refiled this motion in April 2023 as a “supplement” and

moved for the appointment of counsel. Dkt Nos. 585 & 586. On June 6, 2023, the

District Court denied both Holland’s compassionate release motion as supplemented and

his request for counsel. Dkt Nos. 592 & 593. Specifically, the Court concluded that the

motion should be denied because the propriety of the duration of Holland’s sentence was

previously considered and found appropriate, and “[t]he duration of a lawfully imposed

sentence does not create an extraordinary and compelling circumstance” warranting relief

under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Dkt No. 593, at 1 (quoting United States v. Andrews,

, 260–61 (3d Cir. 2021)). Holland filed a timely notice of appeal from the June 6,

2023 order. Dkt No. 599.2 On appeal, the Government seeks summary affirmance and

Holland has moved for appointment of counsel.

2 In his notice of appeal, Holland incorrectly dated the District Court’s order as June 7, 2023. There is no question, however, which order he seeks to appeal.

3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to

. We review for abuse of

discretion a district court’s order denying a motion for compassionate release. United

States v. Pawlowski,

, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). “[W]e will not disturb the District

Court’s decision unless there is a definite and firm conviction that it committed a clear

error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.”

(quotation marks and citation omitted). We may take summary action if the appeal

presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6; see also

Murray v. Bledsoe,

(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (explaining that this

Court may uphold a district court’s decision on any basis supported by the record).

A district court “may reduce [a federal inmate’s] term of imprisonment” if it finds

that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”

(c)(1)(A)(i). In his request for compassionate release, Holland appears to have

presented two circumstances that he alleges constitute extraordinary and compelling

reasons for release: (1) judicial misconduct, and (2) insufficient evidence to sustain his

conviction and sentence. There is no indication that the District Court “committed a clear

error of judgment” when it denied his motion. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330.

Although couched as arguments in support of compassionate release, both of

Holland’s grounds for compassionate release attack the legal validity of his convictions

and sentence, which is “the heart of habeas corpus.” See McCarthy v. Bronson,

(1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973)).

4 Compassionate release is not a means of avoiding the standards for obtaining relief via

successive § 2255 motions or § 2241 petitions. See Okereke v. United States,

(3d Cir. 2002) (stating that “[m]otions pursuant to

are the

presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or

sentences”); United States v. Crandall,

(8th Cir. 2022) (“[Movant]

cannot avoid the restrictions of the post-conviction relief statute by resorting to a request

for compassionate release instead.” (citing United States v. Hunter,

(6th Cir. 2021)).3 For this reason, his motion was properly denied.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion for summary action and will

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.4 Appellant’s motion for appointment of

counsel on appeal is denied.

3 As the District Court specifically noted, Holland has raised the sufficiency of the evidence issue regarding the quantity/weight of the drugs on direct appeal and in numerous subsequent motions in the District Court. See Dkt No. 593, at 2. 4 We also discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to deny Holland’s motion for the appointment of counsel. See United States v. Webb,

, 795 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (recognizing that a district court may appoint counsel as a matter of discretion).

5