United States of America v. Daniel Gatson, also known as Tokyo Gatson also known as CRAIG, also known as BIG COUNTRY

BLD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-2443
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL GATSON, also known as Tokyo Gatson
also known as CRAIG, also known as BIG COUNTRY,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cr-00705-001)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 6, 2022
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 14, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Daniel Gatson, a federal prisoner housed at Federal Correction Institution at Fort
Dix (“FCI-Fort Dix”), appeals from the order of the District Court denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Government has
filed a timely motion for summary affirmance. For the following reasons, we grant the
Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
In 2015, Gatson was convicted of numerous counts of transporting stolen property
across state lines. The property, valued at $3.6 million, had been stolen from multiple
residences. The District Court imposed a sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment. In
2021, Gatson filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that his race, weight, and
hypertension diagnosis made him susceptible to complications from contracting COVID-
19. The District Court denied Gatson’s motion, noting that his concerns regarding
COVID-19 were not supported by his decision to decline the COVID-19 vaccine. This
Court summarily affirmed the judgment. See United States v. Gatson, No. 21-2749, 2021
WL 5632079 (3d Cir. Dec. 1, 2021) (per curiam).
In 2022, Gatson filed another pro se motion for compassionate release, arguing
that he was now fully vaccinated but still at a heightened risk of becoming severely ill
due to new and vaccine-resistant strains of COVID-19. He also argued that, in light of
the current sentencing landscape, his sentence was unduly severe. The District Court
again denied Gatson’s motion, reasoning that, while they do not provide absolute
immunity, vaccines protect against severe illness. Gatson appealed.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s
decision to deny a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021). Thus, “we will not disturb the
court’s determination unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that it
committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.” Id. (quotation marks,
alteration, and citation omitted). We may take summary action if the appeal presents no
substantial question. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
A district court “may reduce [a federal inmate’s] term of imprisonment” and
“impose a term of probation or supervised release” if it finds that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1 Although
Gatson’s weight and hypertension place him at a higher risk of serious illness from
COVID-19, the District Court did not commit a clear error of judgment in concluding
that his ailments were insufficient to constitute an extraordinary and compelling
circumstance justifying release in this case. As the District Court noted, Gatson is fully
vaccinated, which reduces his risk of serious illness. See United States v. Broadfield, 5
F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021) (“[F]or the vast majority of prisoners, the availability of a
vaccine makes it impossible to conclude that the risk of COVID-19 is an ‘extraordinary
and compelling’ reason for immediate release.”). Moreover, the District Court observed
that because FCI-Fort Dix had only one active COVID-19 case at the time Gatson filed
his motion, conditions within the facility also counseled against granting relief. As to
Gatson’s argument regarding the changed sentencing landscape, this Court has noted that
non-retroactive changes in statutory sentencing law alone cannot create extraordinary and
compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release. See Andrews, 12 F.4th at
261-62. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision, we
grant the Government’s motion for summary action and will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
1 Before granting compassionate release, a district court must also consider the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) “to the extent that they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Here, having concluded that Gatson did not demonstrate extraordinary
and compelling reasons justifying release, the District Court went on to find that the
weighing of the § 3553(a) factors also advised against compassionate release.

-- 3 of 3 --