Combination Of Circumstances Flashcards
A district court doesn’t have to tick off your arguments to show that it considered them, does it?
That’s true, your honor. But here, the evidence that the district court failed to consider the combination of factors goes beyond the district court’s mere failure to tick off the factors.
• First, the district court identified which proffered circumstances it was considering. It started its order by describing Mr. Weller’s arguments as follows: “[1] that because of a change in sentencing guidelines, his sentence, if calculated today, would be lower and [2] that because of his conviction offense he is not eligible to participate in the RDAP program.” ER-3.
• Then, the court considered them separately and rejected them separately.
• The Court didn’t mention any other circumstance. And in particular, the court didn’t mention COVID-19 at all, even though that was a huge part of Mr. Weller’s motion and the government’s response at the time of the court’s ruling.
• Looking at the underlying briefing, the government also wrongly described Mr. Weller’s argument as exclusively related to a combination of RDAP and the legal error. SER-24 (“[Mr. Weller argues] that a change in sentencing guidelines combined with an inability to participate in RDAP constitutes ‘extraordinary and compelling’ circumstances.”). That symmetry suggests that the judge followed the government’s lead.
• Finally, the district court failed to address the combination of circumstances even though Mr. Weller provided significant evidentiary and legal support for his proffered circumstances.
• United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021): “no assurance that the court gave [the] combination of conditions any focused consideration.” Id. at 489–90.
But your arguments were “conceptually simple” and required little explanation, right?
The language your honor is quoting comes from Rita v. United States, which is a case about how much explanation courts must give to support their sentencing decisions.
• The problem here isn’t the district’s lack of explanation. The problem is that the district court committed a legal error: the court didn’t consider all Mr. Weller’s proffered circumstances in combination. Several pieces of record evidence support that conclusion.
•
• First, the district court identified which proffered circumstances it was considering. It started its order by describing Mr. Weller’s arguments as follows: “[1] that because of a change in sentencing guidelines, his sentence, if calculated today, would be lower and [2] that because of his conviction offense he is not eligible to participate in the RDAP program.” ER-3.
• Then, the court considered them separately and rejected them separately.
• The Court didn’t mention any other circumstance. And in particular, the court didn’t mention COVID-19 at all, even though that was a huge part of Mr. Weller’s motion and the government’s response at the time of the court’s ruling.
• Looking at the underlying briefing, the government also wrongly described Mr. Weller’s argument as exclusively related to a combination of RDAP and the legal error. SER-24 (“[Mr. Weller argues] that a change in sentencing guidelines combined with an inability to participate in RDAP constitutes ‘extraordinary and compelling’ circumstances.”). That symmetry suggests that the judge followed the government’s lead.
• Finally, the district court failed to address the combination of circumstances even though Mr. Weller provided significant evidentiary and legal support for his proffered circumstances.
• United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021): “no assurance that the court gave [the] combination of conditions any focused consideration.”Id. at 489–90.
Aren’t your arguments so implausible that they didn’t deserve a response?
No, your honor. In the compassionate release motion, Mr. Weller cited district court cases combining each of his proffered circumstances with a legal development and finding extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.
• The court didn’t have to accept those argument, but Mr. Weller supported them with both case law and evidence.
•
• First, the district court identified which proffered circumstances it was considering. It started its order by describing Mr. Weller’s arguments as follows: “[1] that because of a change in sentencing guidelines, his sentence, if calculated today, would be lower and [2] that because of his conviction offense he is not eligible to participate in the RDAP program.” ER-3.
• Then, the court considered them separately and rejected them separately.
• The Court didn’t mention any other circumstance. And in particular, the court didn’t mention COVID-19 at all, even though that was a huge part of Mr. Weller’s motion and the government’s response at the time of the court’s ruling.
• Looking at the underlying briefing, the government also wrongly described Mr. Weller’s argument as exclusively related to a combination of RDAP and the legal error. SER-24 (“[Mr. Weller argues] that a change in sentencing guidelines combined with an inability to participate in RDAP constitutes ‘extraordinary and compelling’ circumstances.”). That symmetry suggests that the judge followed the government’s lead.
• Finally, the district court failed to address the combination of circumstances even though Mr. Weller provided significant evidentiary and legal support for his proffered circumstances.
• United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021): “no assurance that the court gave [the] combination of conditions any focused consideration.” Id. at 489–90
Shouldn’t we infer that the district court considered the combination of circumstances?
No, your honor. It’s true that when the record does not disclose the district court’s reasons, this Court sometimes infers what those reasons were. But drawing that kind of inference would be improper here for several reasons.
•
• First, the district court identified which proffered circumstances it was considering. It started its order by describing Mr. Weller’s arguments as follows: “[1] that because of a change in sentencing guidelines, his sentence, if calculated today, would be lower and [2] that because of his conviction offense he is not eligible to participate in the RDAP program.” ER-3.
• Then, the court considered them separately and rejected them separately.
• The Court didn’t mention any other circumstance. And in particular, the court didn’t mention COVID-19 at all, even though that was a huge part of Mr. Weller’s motion and the government’s response at the time of the court’s ruling.
• Looking at the underlying briefing, the government also wrongly described Mr. Weller’s argument as exclusively related to a combination of RDAP and the legal error. SER-24 (“[Mr. Weller argues] that a change in sentencing guidelines combined with an inability to participate in RDAP constitutes ‘extraordinary and compelling’ circumstances.”). That symmetry suggests that the judge followed the government’s lead.
• Finally, the district court failed to address the combination of circumstances even though Mr. Weller provided significant evidentiary and legal support for his proffered circumstances.
• United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021): “no assurance that the court gave [the] combination of conditions any focused consideration.”Id. at 489–90.
