NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
Nos. 20-3040 & 20-3041
______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMAL HAYNES,
Appellant
______________
On Appeal from the District Court
of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. Criminal Nos. 3-17-cr-00019-004 & 3-17-cr-00042-001)
District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy
______________
Argued: May 4, 2021
Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and FISHER,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 21, 2021)
______________
Pamela L. Colon [ARGUED]
Law Office of Pamela Lynn Colon, LLC
2155 King Cross Street, Suite 3
Christiansted, VI 00820
Counsel for Appellant Jamal Haynes
Gretchen C.F. Shappert
Delia L. Smith [ARGUED]
Office of United States Attorney
District of the Virgin Islands
5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260
St. Thomas, VI 00802
Counsel for Appellee United States of America
______________
OPINION
______________
PORTER, Circuit Judge.
In 2017, Jamal Haynes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine in two separate cases. He is serving concurrent sentences of 135
months’ and 78 months’ imprisonment. Last year, Haynes moved for sentence
modification in both cases under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The District Court held that
Haynes had demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting modification
but denied relief after weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We will affirm.
I1
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes sentence modifications in two circumstances.
First, when “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, “when certain defendants reach 70 years of age, have served
at least 30 years of their term, and have been determined not to pose a threat to society.”
United States v. Easter, 975 F.3d 318, 323 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)). In either circumstance, the defendant must “fully exhaust[] all
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction to consider Haynes’s motion for sentence
modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to
review the District Court’s order denying relief.
2
administrative rights” before the Bureau of Prisons prior to requesting modification from
the District Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
If the District Court finds that the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification,
it must then consider the factors listed in § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The
§ 3553(a) factors include, among other things, (1) “the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” (2) “the need for the
sentence imposed” to reflect the various justifications underlying the criminal justice
system, (3) “the kinds of sentences available,” and (4) “the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)–(3), (6).
The District Court held that Haynes had exhausted his administrative remedies and
had presented “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant[ing] such a reduction.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The government does not contest those holdings. Our review
is thus limited to the District Court’s application of the § 3553(a) factors, which we
review for abuse of discretion. See Easter, 975 F.3d at 322. We write primarily for the
parties and presume their familiarity with the facts.
II
Haynes first argues that the District Court erred by mixing up the order of
analysis. According to Haynes, § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires the court to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors first, and then consider whether extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant modification. He suggests that the District Court’s finding of extraordinary and
compelling reasons means that it necessarily found that the factors weigh in favor of
relief. In other words, Haynes argues that the District Court’s favorable ruling on what he
3
says is step two means that step one must also weigh in his favor. Haynes misreads the
statute. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits the court to grant relief “after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) . . . if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction.” The conditional statement is clear: The court first
determines whether a defendant is eligible for relief by considering whether
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). If
the court finds such reasons, it then considers the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether
to grant the relief. Id. The text and our precedent foreclose Haynes’s attempt to flip the
order of analysis. See Easter, 975 F.3d at 323–24; United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d
327, 329–30 (3d Cir. 2020). Haynes repeatedly emphasizes that the District Court found
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting sentence reduction, but that issue is not
before this Court. After the court made that finding, it moved on to evaluate the
§ 3553(a) factors, as the statute requires.
Haynes also points to two cases in which district courts granted sentence
modifications in light of COVID-19 and argues that those cases mandate the same result
here. In United States v. Hendry, the defendant was released after serving 28.2% of his
sentence for conspiracy to harbor aliens. No. 2:19-cr-14035, 2020 WL 4015487 (S.D.
Fla. July 16, 2020). In United States v. Smith, the defendant was released after serving
10% of his sentence for wire fraud. No. CR19-107RSL, 2020 WL 4345327 (W.D. Wash.
July 29, 2020). When the District Court considered Haynes’s motion, Haynes had served
about 30% of his sentence. The court weighed Haynes’s remaining sentence against the
purposes of criminal sentencing outlined in § 3553(a)(2), finding that “the need to
4
promote respect for the law and afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct weigh
heavily against a reduction in sentence.” J.A. 11–12. The court considered deterrence of
drug trafficking in particular, which was not an issue in Hendry or Smith. Moreover, any
similarity to Hendry and Smith is overshadowed by the similarities between Haynes and
his codefendants. The District Court found that reducing Haynes’s sentence by 70%
would cause disparities between Haynes and his codefendants convicted of similar
crimes. That was not an abuse of discretion.
Haynes also argues that the District Court erred in concluding that he may pose a
danger to the community if released early. Haynes cites Pepper v. United States, 562
U.S. 476 (2011), for its holding that “a district court at resentencing may consider
evidence of the defendant’s postsentencing rehabilitation and that such evidence may, in
appropriate cases, support a downward variance from the now-advisory Federal
Sentencing Guidelines range.” Id. at 481. Even assuming that Pepper applies to a motion
to reduce a sentence, the District Court did consider Haynes’s evidence of rehabilitation
as part of the § 3553(a) analysis. The court weighed the rehabilitation evidence against
the severity of Haynes’s crimes and held that the factor weighed neutrally. The court did
not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence of rehabilitation did not outweigh
the severity of Haynes’s involvement in two separate large-scale drug-trafficking
conspiracies. We have considered Haynes’s remaining arguments and find in them no
basis for reversal. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Haynes’s
motion for sentence modification.
5
* * *
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
6