United States of America v. Devon Brinkley

ALD-066 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-2113
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DEVON BRINKLEY,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-09-cr-00060-004)
District Judge: Honorable Kai N. Scott
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
on January 16, 2025
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 28, 2025)
____________________________________

-- 1 of 4 --

2
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Devon Brinkley, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s
order denying his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The
Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. We grant the Government’s mo-
tion.
In 2008, Brinkley and his co-conspirators conducted a series of armed robberies. After
two federal trials resulted in hung juries, Brinkley’s third trial resulted in his conviction on
all charges, including five counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and five firearm
counts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Due to the mandatory consecutive § 924(c) sen-
tences, Brinkley was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 107 years. We affirmed the
conviction and sentence. See United States v. Brinkley, 524 F. App’x 817, 818 (3d Cir.
2013).
In 2021, Brinkley filed his first motion for compassionate release, which was based
primarily on a change to the statutory penalties for consecutive § 924(c) convictions, his
young age at the time of the offense, his rehabilitation, and a comparison with the sentences
of his co-defendants. The District Court determined that the disparity between Brinkley’s
sentence and the sentence he would receive under current law was an extraordinary and
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
compelling reason for granting the motion,1 and, after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, reduced Brinkley’s total term of imprisonment to 240 months.
In January 2024, Brinkley filed a second motion for compassionate release based on
essentially the same grounds as his first motion. The District Court denied the motion. This
appeal ensued.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Muhammud, 701
F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012). We review for abuse of discretion the District Court’s ulti-
mate decision to grant or deny a motion for compassionate release and will not disturb the
decision unless the District Court committed a clear error of judgment. See United States
v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021). We may take summary action on any basis
supported by the record if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.
27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Here, the extraordinary and compelling reasons that Brinkley presented in support of a
reduction under § 3582(c)(1) are essentially the same as those he previously raised in his
first motion. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s ultimate deter-
mination that the sentence reduction it had previously provided was appropriate and that
there was no basis in the second motion to provide a further reduction.2
1 The Government elected not to appeal this decision. See C.A. Doc. No. 14 at 6–7 (dis-
cussing this Court’s determinations, in United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 261 (3d
Cir. 2021), and in United States v. Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360, 376 (3d Cir. 2024), that the
change in § 924(c) cannot be a basis for compassionate release).
2 We note that Brinkley’s filings on appeal generally do not address his asserted bases for
compassionate relief under § 3582(c)(1). Instead, he primarily raises challenges to his con-
viction and sentence, including a claim under United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022),

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
which must be raised in a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the District Court
proceedings, Brinkley was informed that he must file an application under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 with this Court if he wishes to file a second or successive § 2255 motion raising a
Taylor claim. We similarly direct Brinkley to file a § 2244 application with this Court if he
wishes to pursue such relief.

-- 4 of 4 --