United States v. Luke

24-1141-cr United States v. Luke UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2 Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 3 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-five. — 5 — 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ — 13 — 14 United States of America, — 15 — 16 Appellee, 17 v. 24-1141 — 18 — 19 Timothy Luke, AKA Luch, — 20 — 21 Defendant-Appellant. 22 _____________________________________ 1 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Timothy Luke, pro se, White Deer, 2 PA. — 3 — 4 FOR APPELLEE: Monica J. Richards (Tiffany H. Lee, 5 Assistant United States Attorneys, 6 on the brief), for Michael DiGiacomo, 7 United States Attorney for the 8 Western District of New York, 9 Buffalo, NY. — 10 — 11 Appeal from two orders of the United States District Court for the Western 12 District of New York (Frank P. Geraci, J.). 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 14 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the District Court are 15 AFFIRMED. 16 Timothy Luke, proceeding pro se, appeals from an April 19, 2024 order of 17 the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.) 18 denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 19 3582(c)(1)(A) and his motion for reconsideration. In 2014, the district court 20 sentenced Luke principally to 190 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to 21 distribute narcotics and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug 22 trafficking crime. Beginning in 2023, Luke filed two motions for compassionate — 2 — 1 release (and motions for reconsideration) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). 2 The district court denied each of these motions. We assume the parties’ 3 familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, repeating 4 only what is necessary to explain our decision to AFFIRM. 5 We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release and motion 6 for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120 , 7 122 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam); RJE Corp. v. Northville Indus. Corp., 329 F.3d 310 , 8 316 (2d Cir. 2003). A district court “may” reduce a defendant’s term of 9 imprisonment “after considering the factors set forth in [S]ection 3553(a)” if it 10 finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and 11 that “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by 12 the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). If a defendant is 13 eligible for a reduction, “the [district] court must determine whether, and to what 14 extent, to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence.” United States v. Moore, — 15 — 975 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2020). 16 We conclude that, even assuming arguendo that Luke had established 17 extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a sentence reduction, — 3 — 1 the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying compassionate release 2 and Luke’s motion for reconsideration. The district court reconsidered the 18 — 3 — U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, such as Luke’s personal history and characteristics, and 4 found that they did not weigh in favor of a sentence reduction. Specifically, the 5 district court found that reducing Luke’s sentence was not warranted given his 6 criminal history, which includes a prior felony conviction for forcible robbery 7 and several convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance. It also 8 considered the seriousness of Luke’s crime, as well as the need for deterrence, to 9 promote respect for law, and to protect the community from the devastating 10 effect of Luke’s narcotics distribution. Contrary to what Luke asserts, the 11 district court also explicitly considered his post-conviction rehabilitation efforts, 12 but it found that, on balance, these efforts did not warrant a sentence reduction. 13 The district court’s denial of Luke’s motion for compassionate release and 14 reconsideration thus did not fall outside the range of permissible decisions. 15 United States v. Amato, 48 F.4th 61 , 65–66 (2d Cir. 2022). 16 We have considered Luke’s remaining arguments and find them to be 17 without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court denying — 4 — 1 compassionate release and reconsideration and DENY Luke’s motion for 2 compassionate release. 3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court — 5 —