UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7424
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN ANTONIO HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00442-TDS-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2021 Decided: February 8, 2022
Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Antonio Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Antonio Hunter, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as
amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194,
5239. Hunter moved for immediate compassionate release based on his many health
conditions, including a Type B aortic dissection, hypertension, acute kidney injury,
hypoxia, and stage three chronic kidney disease. Hunter’s motion was also predicated on
his particular susceptibility to serious illness should he contract COVID-19. Although the
district court assumed Hunter’s medical conditions constituted “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” for compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the court
denied Hunter’s motion after an assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. For the
reasons explained below, we vacate and remand.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Hunter’s
compassionate release motion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021);
United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider
judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous
factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d
151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court also abuses
its discretion “when it ignores unrebutted, legally significant evidence.” In re Search
Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 171 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying Hunter’s
compassionate release motion for two reasons. First, the district court erroneously stated
that the Government opposed Hunter’s motion. The Government did not oppose the
motion; rather, the Government deferred to the district court as to whether Hunter’s early
release was appropriate in light of his significant health problems. Second, the district
court’s ruling that Hunter still poses a danger to the community did not account for the
potentially lifelong physical limitations that Hunter will experience as a result of his aortic
dissection. Indeed, the district court failed to acknowledge that Hunter’s violent conduct
both inside and outside of prison—on which the court based its future dangerousness
ruling—occurred before he suffered the aortic dissection. Accordingly, we will vacate the
district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
On remand, the district court should also more thoroughly assess Hunter’s argument
concerning his particular susceptibility to serious illness should he contract COVID-19.
Although the district court acknowledged that Hunter’s compassionate release motion was
predicated in part on the COVID-19 pandemic, the court dismissed Hunter’s reliance on
the pandemic because he refused to be vaccinated. However, Hunter has represented on
appeal that he received the COVID-19 vaccine after the district court entered its order.
We therefore vacate the district court’s order denying Hunter’s compassionate
release motion and remand for further proceedings. By this disposition, we express no
view as to the ultimate merits of Hunter’s compassionate release motion. We dispense
3
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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4