United States of America v. Connie Edwards

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CONNIE EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-3209
(D.C. No. 2:12-CR-20015-DDC-1)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This case concerns the risks from COVID-19 for prisoners with
serious illnesses. Ms. Connie Edwards is one of these prisoners, fearing the
spread of COVID-19 while she is serving a 300-month prison term for drug
crimes. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(C).
* Oral argument would not materially help us in deciding the appeal, so
we have decided the appeal based on the briefs and the record on appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 4, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-3209 Document: 010110585449 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
During her life, Ms. Edwards has endured many of the illnesses that
heighten the risks from COVID-19: cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, obesity, and Type 2 diabetes
mellitus. The risks appeared particularly grave to Ms. Edwards because of
her age (68 years old). So she moved for compassionate release under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub.
L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. The district court denied her motion.
This statute directs the district court to consider whether
• “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentencing
reduction,
• a reduction would be “consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” and
• a sentence reduction is warranted under the sentencing factors
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
In support, Ms. Edwards pointed not only to her chronic illnesses but
also to her age (68), her lack of a criminal record, her work tutoring other
prisoners, and her plans to live with her sister upon release.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that the § 3553(a)
factors weighed against a sentence reduction. The court acknowledged that
Ms. Edwards’s serious illnesses supported early release. But the court
concluded that this factor was dwarfed by the seriousness of Ms.
Appellate Case: 20-3209 Document: 010110585449 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Edwards’s offense and her failure to serve even 32% of her sentence. R. at
216–17.
On appeal, Ms. Edwards argues that the district court erred by failing
to consider the first step of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry: “whether
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant [a sentencing reduction].” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We recently rejected this argument in United
States v. Hald, explaining that “there is no reason to mandate any
particular order for the three steps.” United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932,
942 (10th Cir. 2021). There the defendants argued that the court should
have considered the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons
before going to the § 3553(a) factors. We disagreed: “If the most
convenient way for the district court to dispose of a motion for
compassionate release is to reject it for failure to satisfy one of the steps,
we see no benefit in requiring it to make the useless gesture of determining
whether one of the other steps is satisfied.” Id. at 942–43.
The district court need not address all three steps when denying a
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. But the court must still consider all of the relevant
facts. Id. at 937. The district court did so here, fully considering the facts
that Ms. Edwards had characterized as extraordinary and compelling—her
chronic illnesses and the risks created by COVID-19. But the court
reasonably found that other § 3553(a) factors outweighed the grounds
urged by Ms. Edwards. Under Hald, the court did not err by skipping ahead
Appellate Case: 20-3209 Document: 010110585449 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
to these factors. We thus affirm the denial of Ms. Edwards’s motion for a
reduction of sentence.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-3209 Document: 010110585449 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --