United States v. Poutre ( 2021 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 27, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 20-8043
(D.C. No. 2:16-CR-00018-SWS-2)
ROBERT V. POUTRE, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Robert V. Poutre appeals the district court’s dismissal of his request for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
Mr. Poutre pled guilty to federal drug and firearm offenses and was sentenced
to 240 months in prison, later reduced to 181 months. After serving approximately
48 months, he moved for release due to “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court considered the reasons Mr. Poutre
presented and concluded they were “neither extraordinary nor compelling.” ROA,
Vol. I at 109. It held that “[b]ecause the Tenth Circuit requires a defendant to show
that § 3582(c) authorizes relief for the Court to have jurisdiction, Defendant’s motion
must be dismissed.” Id. at 111.
On appeal, Mr. Poutre does not challenge the district court’s analysis of his
eligibility for release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argues instead that the district
court erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction. The Government agrees that § 3582(c)’s
criteria should not be viewed as jurisdictional requirements, but it recognizes the
district court followed Tenth Circuit precedent in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
This court has held that “[a] district court is authorized to modify a
[d]efendant’s sentence only in specified instances where Congress has expressly
granted the court jurisdiction to do so.” United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1244
(10th Cir. 2014) (first brackets in original and quotations omitted). “Unless the basis
for resentencing falls within one of the specific categories authorized by section
3582(c), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider [the defendant’s] request.”
United States v. Brown, 556 F.3d 1108, 1113 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).
Our cases thus require the movant to show that § 3582(c) authorizes relief for the
2
court to have jurisdiction. See White, 765 F.3d at 1250; United States v. C.D., 848
F.3d 1286, 1291 (10th Cir. 2017).
Mr. Poutre takes issue with this precedent, but it binds this panel. 1 And as the
Government points out, the district court dismissed after it concluded Mr. Poutre’s
motion failed to meet the § 3582(c)(1)(A) standards. We therefore affirm.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
1
Mr. Poutre argues “this Court must reconsider these cases,” Aplt. Br. at 5, but
“[w]e must generally follow our precedents absent en banc consideration,” United
States v. Lira-Ramirez, 951 F.3d 1258, 1260 (10th Cir. 2020).
3