USA v. Brown et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:00-cr-00069-MR-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
AMOS JUNIOR SCOTT, )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s “Motion and
Memorandum of Law in Support of Request for Compassionate Release and
Sentence Reduction under the First Step Act of 2108” [Doc. 238].
I. BACKGROUND
The Defendant Amos Junior Scott was charged with conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 846.1 [Doc. 3: Indictment]. Prior to trial, the Government filed an
Information under 21 U.S.C. § 851, notifying Scott and this Court that it
intended to seek an enhanced penalty because Scott had previously been
1 A full recounting of the procedural history of this matter is set forth in the Order entered
by this Court denying Scott’s first motion for compassionate release [Doc. 220], and will
not be repeated here.
Case 1:00-cr-00069-MR Document 247 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 5

2
convicted of a felony drug offense in California. [Doc. 7: § 851 Notice]. A
jury convicted Scott of the conspiracy offense, finding that the offense
involved at least five kilograms of cocaine. [Doc. 80: Jury Verdict].
At sentencing, the Court determined that the Defendant was a career
offender and sentenced him to life in prison. [Doc. 111: Judgment at 2]. The
Defendant is currently housed at FCI Butner Medium II with no projected
release date due to his life sentence.2
In February 2021, the Defendant filed a motion seeking compassionate
release, arguing three grounds: (1) that he was erroneously classified as a
career offender, and that if he were sentenced today, he would not have
been sentenced as severely; (2) that he suffers from a number of chronic
health conditions which increase his risk of serious illness or death from
COVID-19; and (3) that he had “compiled a remarkable record of
rehabilitation” in prison, thereby demonstrating that he would not be a danger
to the public if released. [Doc. 207 at 1-2]. In July 2021, the Court denied
the Defendant’s motion. [Doc. 220]. The Defendant sought reconsideration
of that Order, which was denied. [Docs. 221, 229]. The Defendant appealed
[Doc. 231], and in April 2022, the Court of Appeals affirmed. [Doc. 236].
2 See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed Aug. 11, 2023).
Case 1:00-cr-00069-MR Document 247 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 5

3
Scott now returns to this Court with another request for compassionate
release. [Doc. 238]. In his motion, Scott reiterates the grounds he asserted
in his first compassionate release motion regarding his career offender
designation, his medical conditions and susceptibility to COVID-19, and his
record of rehabilitation while incarcerated. Additionally, he makes several
challenges to his conviction, including that the Court erred in its instructions
to the jury and relied on misinformation when it originally sentenced him.
[Id.]. The Government has filed an opposition to Scott’s motion [Doc. 245],
and Scott has filed a reply [Doc. 246].
II. DISCUSSION
To the extent that Scott argues that this Court erred by sentencing him
as a career offender, erred in its instructions to the jury, or relied on
misinformation when it originally sentenced him, such arguments challenge
the validity of his conviction and sentence and are not cognizable in a
compassionate release proceeding. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th
262, 272 (4th Cir. 2022). A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remains “the
exclusive method” for such challenges, and Scott may not “sidestep § 2255’s
requirements” through a motion for compassionate release. Id. at 270.
Case 1:00-cr-00069-MR Document 247 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 5

4
Accordingly, to the extent that Scott attempts to directly attack his original
conviction and sentence, such arguments are rejected.
With respect to the other grounds asserted by Scott, the Court has
already exhaustively addressed these arguments in its previous Orders.
[Docs. 220, 229]. Having considered the totality of the circumstances
presented, along with the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the
Court again concludes, for the reasons stated in its previous Orders, that
Scott has failed to show any grounds, considered singly or in combination,
that would constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for a
compassionate release. See United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348, 353
(5th Cir. 2022) (repetitive compassionate release motion may be denied for
“the same reasons stated” in a prior ruling).
In light of the serious nature of Scott’s offense and his criminal history,
the Court continues to find that the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors,
including the need for the sentence to reflect the true extent and seriousness
of Scott’s offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment,
to afford adequate deterrence, and to protect the public from further crimes,
continue to weigh in favor of his continued incarceration. Accordingly, the
Defendant’s present motion for compassionate release is denied.
Case 1:00-cr-00069-MR Document 247 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s “Motion and
Memorandum of Law in Support of Request for Compassionate Release and
Sentence Reduction under the First Step Act of 2108” [Doc. 238] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 18, 2023
Case 1:00-cr-00069-MR Document 247 Filed 08/18/23 Page 5 of 5