United States v. Hill—Decision Granting Compassionate Release Based on Intervening Changes in Law and Rehabilitative Behavior

I really like this case out of the Eastern District of Virginia, C/A 3:14-cr-114 (decided January 4, 2023).  It nicely illustrates how district court judge are using the First Step Act to revisit lengthy prison sentences in light of changes in the law and also, just as importantly, a defendant’s post-conviction efforts at rehabilitation.  Here, Earl Frank Hill Jr. was charged with conspiracy to distribute one hundred grams or more of heroin in 2014. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 188 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Hill filed a motion for compassionate release in 2020 due to COVID-19, which was denied. He then filed a second motion for compassionate release in 2022, citing the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Norman, 935 F.3d 232, 239 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that a 21 U.S.C. §846 conspiracy is not categorically a “controlled substance offense” as required to support a criminal history category enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines), which would have altered his sentencing guidelines. Hill argued that he could not have raised a Norman sentencing disparity through a § 2255 motion because the Fourth Circuit has held that application of a ‘career offender’ designation does not present a claim that is cognizable on collateral review. Hill argued the sentence he was serving was about twice as long as the one he would receive today after Norman, and that this disparity is extraordinary and compelling. The court discussed the lack of Fourth Circuit authority on whether granting compassionate release only allows for a sentence of time served or whether a partial sentence reduction is permissible. In this opinion, the Court cites cases from other circuits that have allowed for partial sentence reductions under the First Step Act. The Court found Hill properly raised his sentencing disparity through a compassionate release motion, as he could not have done so through a § 2255 motion. The Court also noted Hill exhausted his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the district court. The Court found the disparity between Hill’s current sentence and the sentence he would receive today is an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. The district court then considered the 3553(a) factors and found they supported a reduction in Hill’s sentence, taking into account the seriousness of his offense, his age, and his record of rehabilitation. The district court reduced Hill’s sentence from 188 months to 105 months.