United States of America v. Jeremy J. Snyder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY J. SNYDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-3089
(D.C. No. 6:20-CR-10005-EFM-4)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Jeremy J. Snyder, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of
his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release. The
government elected not to file a response brief. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
In September 2020, Mr. Snyder pleaded guilty to the use of a communication
facility to facilitate the commission of a drug crime in violation of 21 U.S.C.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 24, 2023
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 1

-- 1 of 6 --

2
§ 843(b), and to possession of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).
In April 2021 he was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Snyder is currently
incarcerated at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution (FCI La Tuna). His
projected release date is May 1, 2024, but he is eligible for home detention on
November 2, 2023.
In March 2022, Mr. Snyder filed a motion for compassionate release, asserting
that many courts had granted compassionate release because of the threat of
COVID-19. He alleged that the vaccines lose their effectiveness after four to six
months, with record numbers of COVID-19 infections resulting in record numbers of
COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. And he argued that the “extraordinary and
compelling number of COVID cases in prison[,]” his “health issues of obesity and a
history of smoking[,]” and “the impossibility to social distance as recommended by
the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),] warrant[ed] a sentence
reduction.” R., vol. I at 113.
In May 2022 the district court denied the motion. Although the district court
recognized that the CDC has found that Mr. Snyder’s medical condition of obesity
may increase his risk of severe illness from COVID-19, the court concluded he did
not show a high risk. The court based this risk assessment on the following evidence:
(1) there was no widespread COVID-19 outbreak at FCI La Tuna at the time of its
decision (no active inmate cases and only three active staff cases) and the prison has
Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 2

-- 2 of 6 --

3
taken steps to control outbreaks; (2) Mr. Snyder has been fully vaccinated; 1 and
(3) he has already contracted COVID-19 with no serious medical complications. The
court therefore determined that Mr. Snyder had not met his burden to demonstrate
“an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting a sentence reduction.” Id.
at 258.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for
compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Hemmelgarn,
15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it
relies on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Under § 3582(c)(1)(A) a district court engages in a three-step process to
determine whether to grant a motion for compassionate release. The court considers
whether (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction”;
(2) the “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission” (though there is no applicable policy statement at this
time); and (3) the relevant sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warrant a
reduction. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 937-38, 938 n.4 (10th Cir. 2021)
(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2742 (2022). A district
1 As the government noted in its response brief in district court, prison records
show that Mr. Snyder initially refused a COVID-19 vaccine on October 5, 2021, and
tested positive for COVID-19 about a month later. Mr. Snyder then agreed to be
vaccinated on January 7, 2022.
Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 3

-- 3 of 6 --

4
court may properly deny a compassionate-release motion if any of these three
prerequisites is lacking and need not address the other two. See id. at 942-43.
On appeal Mr. Snyder raises the following issues: (1) the district court erred in
finding there is no widespread COVID outbreak at FCI La Tuna; (2) “vaccinations do
not stop more contagious variants,” Aplt. Br. at 3; (3) “[he] does have
extraordinary/compelling reasons,” id. at 4; (4) “previous COVID infection does not
eliminate risk,” id.; (5) “fully vaccinated inmates [are] still at risk,” id. at 5; and
(6) the district court ignored case law in support of a sentence reduction and cited to
case law that came out before omicron and other variants. We construe Mr. Snyder’s
pro se brief liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny
Mr. Snyder’s motion for compassionate release. The court gave a reasoned basis for
its decision and did not rely on any erroneous factual findings or incorrect
conclusions of law. First, the district court’s factual finding that there was no
widespread COVID outbreak at FCI La Tuna at the time of its decision is not clearly
erroneous. Mr. Snyder has offered no evidence that this finding was untrue when the
district court entered its order on May 4, 2022, which is the relevant timeframe, see
Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032.
Next, although Mr. Snyder contends that vaccinations do not stop more
contagious variants and fully vaccinated inmates are still at risk, the district court did
not err in finding that Mr. Snyder’s being fully vaccinated decreases his risk for
Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 4

-- 4 of 6 --

5
severe illness from COVID-19 and therefore “changes the calculus on the
extraordinary and compelling reasons inquiry,” R., vol. I at 258 (internal quotation
marks omitted). According to the CDC, vaccination does lessen the potential for
severe illness from COVID-19. 2
As for Mr. Snyder’s argument that a previous COVID-19 infection does not
eliminate the risk of reinfection, the district court found that Mr. Snyder had no
serious medical complications when he contracted COVID-19 in November 2021.
Mr. Snyder does not challenge that finding. The district court therefore did not abuse
its discretion in considering his prior infection when determining that he was not at
high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 even with his underlying medical
conditions. See Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1032 (“[T]he district court’s statement that
[the inmate] recovered from COVID-19 despite his medical conditions is simply
consistent with the view that those conditions do not place him at high risk of severe
illness from COVID-19.”).
Mr. Snyder also complains the district court ignored case law that supported a
sentence reduction, but the district court did not ignore or fail to comply with any
binding precedent in denying his motion. In any event, in considering compassionate
release because of COVID-19, the relevant considerations may differ from prisoner
2 “COVID-19 vaccination significantly lowers your risk of severe illness,
hospitalization, and death if you get infected.” CDC, Frequently Asked Questions
About COVID-19 Vaccination, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/vaccines/faq.html (last updated Dec. 22, 2022).
Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 5

-- 5 of 6 --

6
to prisoner, from institution to institution, and from one month to the next, thereby
greatly reducing the persuasive effect of any particular nonprecedential decision.
Only one argument from Mr. Snyder merits further mention. When discussing
Mr. Snyder’s risks from COVID-19, the district court specifically noted the increase
in risk of severe illness because of his obesity, citing a CDC report. Mr. Snyder
suggests that the court did not also consider his history of tobacco and drug use. We
are not persuaded. In the preceding paragraph the court had explicitly referenced
Mr. Snyder’s history of tobacco and drug use. The natural inference is that the court
discounted the risk from those conditions for the same reasons it discounted the risk
arising from his obesity—the vaccinations received by Mr. Snyder significantly
decreased his risk of severe disease or death and his prior infection did not result in
any severe medical complications.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that Mr. Snyder failed to demonstrate an extraordinary and compelling circumstance
warranting a sentence reduction. The district court provided a reasoned basis for
denying Mr. Snyder’s motion and did not rely on any incorrect conclusions of law or
erroneous factual findings. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 22-3089 Document: 010110802263 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 6

-- 6 of 6 --