Granger v. United States

Background

Kareem Granger filed a successive motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), asking the court to reduce his sentence or release him. He said that circumstances had changed since his earlier application, including developments in the law and the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. The materials state that he sent a request to the warden on August 2, 2022, and that the request was denied.

Reasons Granger Presented

Granger argued that COVID-19 posed a health risk because he had recovered from lymphoma and feared that new variants could evade vaccine protection. He also described lockdowns, restrictions on physical contact with family, reduced in-person programming, and effects on his mental health. He argued that these conditions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Granger also challenged his career-offender enhancement. He argued that two prior convictions should not qualify because one resulted in probation and he served exactly one year on the other. He further argued that New York’s drug statute was not a categorical match for the federal definition of a controlled substance. He stated that, without the career-offender enhancement, his guideline range would have been 70 to 87 months.

Granger pointed to his rehabilitation, including a lack of incident reports since 2015, work as a barber, teaching other incarcerated people to cut hair, participation in programs, and work in the Federal Prison Industries program. He also described his family responsibilities and stated that he had a residence and employment available if released.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that compassionate release requires extraordinary and compelling reasons and consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court said Granger largely repeated arguments from his first unsuccessful application. It found that he had not explained how he was at greater risk from COVID-19 than before and noted that vaccines had become available and substantially reduced the risk of serious illness.

The court acknowledged that Granger’s rehabilitation and status as a father were commendable but concluded that they did not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances. The court added that, even if Granger had shown extraordinary circumstances, the sentencing factors strongly opposed release because his violent conduct in the underlying case and criminal history were too serious to justify early release.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the application for compassionate release. The court separately stated that Granger appeared to argue that he should not be considered a career criminal and that this argument was more appropriately understood as a challenge to his detention. The court directed the government to address that argument by November 18, 2022; the opinion does not state a final ruling on the career-offender argument.