United States of America v. Roberto Manier

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 21a0103n.06
Case No. 20-5757
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO MANIER,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
OPINION
BEFORE: GIBBONS, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Roberto Manier was sentenced to 100 months in prison after he
sold cocaine to a police informant. Less than 30 months into his sentence, he filed a motion for
compassionate release. Manier had developed prostate cancer. And he argued that his medical
condition, along with the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted early release.
When a defendant files a motion for compassionate release, he must show that:
(1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify release, and (2) the sentencing factors outlined
in § 3553(a) support release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516,
518–19 (6th Cir. 2021). The government conceded that Manier’s cancer diagnosis was an
“extraordinary and compelling” reason. But the district court held that the § 3553(a) factors
weighed against release and denied Manier’s motion. It also held, in the alternative, that Manier
was ineligible for compassionate release under the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement.

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 20-5757, United States v. Manier
- 2 -
On appeal, Manier argues that the district court incorrectly applied the Sentencing
Commission’s policy statement. But even if he’s right, we must still affirm. A district court may
deny compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors alone. Elias, 984 F.3d at 519. And
Manier does not contest the district court’s holding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against
release.
In any event, a challenge to the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors likely would not
have succeeded. We review compassionate release decisions for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1005 (6th Cir. 2020). If we are “satisfied that the district court
considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
decisionmaking authority,” even a “barebones form order w[ill] suffice.” United States v.
McGuire, 822 F. App’x 479, 480 (6th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up); United States v. Hampton, 985 F.3d
530, 533 (6th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Here, the district court provided a three-page analysis
detailing why the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release: Manier has an extensive criminal
history; Manier has repeatedly violated the conditions of his release; the Bureau of Prisons is
adequately treating Manier’s cancer (at no cost to Manier); and a sentence of less than 30 months
would be unusually low given Manier’s crime. The district court’s reasoning was more than
sufficient to support the denial of compassionate release.
We affirm.

-- 2 of 2 --