UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HERNANDEZ DANIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-6319
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HERNANDEZ DANIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cr-00248-JAG-1)
Submitted: July 6, 2021 Decided: July 27, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hernandez Daniel, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In 2008, Hernandez Daniel pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Daniel to 168 months’
imprisonment to be served consecutively to any state sentence. In 2019, Daniel filed a
motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”),
Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. In 2020, Daniel additionally filed a motion for
compassionate release in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The district court
denied both of Daniel’s motions on the same day. In these consolidated appeals, Daniel
challenges both orders. We affirm.
The Supreme Court recently decided Terry v. United States, __ S. Ct. __, No. 20-
5904, 2021 WL 2405145, at *2 (U.S. June 14, 2021). Under Terry, Daniel is ineligible for
a reduction in sentence under the First Step Act. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
Daniel’s motion to reduce his sentence in No. 21-6319.
Turning to the compassionate release motion, the district court may reduce a term
of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act, if
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” We review the district
court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021).
On appeal, Daniel contends that he faces a particularized risk of being infected with
COVID-19 at his institution. However, he does not challenge the district court’s
determination that he is not particularly susceptible to severe illness in case of a COVID-
19 infection and does not otherwise establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for
3
release. Moreover, even if Daniel did establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for
release, the district court indicated that, under the § 3553(a) factors, Daniel’s sentence still
promoted respect for the law, afforded adequate deterrence, and protected the public from
further crimes. While the district court did not explicitly address Daniel’s postsentencing
conduct, we conclude that “the district court was aware of the arguments [and] considered
the relevant sentencing factors.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 191 (4th Cir. 2021). ∗
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Daniel’s compassionate release
motion in No. 21-6316.
We dispense 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.
AFFIRMED
∗
Indeed, in its denial of Daniel’s First Step Act motion (decided on the same day as
the compassionate release motion), the district court explicitly considered Daniel’s post-
sentencing conduct and found it did not warrant a reduced sentence.
4