United States of America v. Jeffrey Brian Cohen

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00310-GLR-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2022 Decided: June 28, 2022
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First
Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. On appeal,
Cohen principally argues that the district court failed to adequately address his arguments
in support of compassionate release.1 We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on a motion for
compassionate release. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 383 (2021); see United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018)
(discussing standard). In ruling on a compassionate-release motion, “a district court is not
required to address each of a defendant’s arguments for a reduced sentence” or “provide
an exhaustive explanation analyzing every § 3553(a) factor.” United States v. Jenkins,
22 F.4th 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2021). Nevertheless, the court must provide an explanation
sufficient “to allow for meaningful appellate review” in light of the particular
circumstances of the case. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th Cir. 2021)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he touchstone in assessing the sufficiency of the
district court’s explanation must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy
our court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
1 To the extent Cohen seeks to relitigate challenges to his sentencing proceedings
that he unsuccessfully raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we find no error in the district court’s
order on this basis.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority[.]” United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th
189, 199 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When a case is “relative[ly] simpl[e],” the explanation requirement is satisfied if the
order shows that “the district court was aware of the arguments, considered the relevant
sentencing factors, and had an intuitive reason” for denying the motion. High, 997 F.3d at
191 (cleaned up); see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).
However, when a defendant “present[s] a significant amount of post-sentencing mitigation
evidence, . . . a more robust and detailed explanation [is] required.” High, 997 F.3d at 190
(cleaned up).
Here, the district court determined that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not
support relief. Although the district court identified particular sentencing factors as
supporting its decision, it did not acknowledge or address Cohen’s detailed arguments in
support of a sentence reduction.2
Cohen’s compassionate-release motion was not simple, and the judge who denied
the motion was not the judge who originally sentenced him. Despite Cohen’s presentation
of significant postsentencing mitigation evidence, including materials relevant to his
positive postsentencing conduct, the court’s explanation does not reflect Cohen’s
arguments regarding these issues. On this record, we are unable to conclude that the district
court “considered” Cohen’s arguments in favor of compassionate release and had “a
2 The district court did not have the benefit of High, Jenkins, or Hargrove when it
decided Cohen’s motion.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
reasoned basis” for its decision to deny relief. Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (cleaned up).
Moreover, the district court’s failure to address Cohen’s multifaceted arguments more
explicitly precludes “meaningful appellate review” of its decision. High, 997 F.3d at 190
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings. We express no view as to the merits of Cohen’s compassionate-release
motion.3 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3 We also express no view as to whether Cohen exhausted his administrative
remedies, leaving any consideration of that issue to the district court in the first instance.
See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 130 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that
compassionate-release exhaustion requirement is nonjurisdictional, claim-processing rule);
United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017) (discussing appropriate treatment
of claim-processing rules).

-- 4 of 4 --