United States v. Rodney Crawley

140 F.4th 165 (4th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 10, 2025 · No. 24-6257

Summary

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant Rodney Crawley's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). While the court agreed that a prior Fourth Circuit decision changed the law such that Virginia robbery no longer qualifies as a predicate offense for the career-offender enhancement, it held that Crawley failed to meet the Sentencing Commission's policy statement requirement of having served at least ten years of his actual term of imprisonment. Consequently, the court found he could not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Niemeyer; Gregory; Quattlebaum
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
June 10, 2025
Docket number
24-6257
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond, denying a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Rodney D. Crawley v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Sentencing Commission’s amended policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 applies to a compassionate‑release motion filed before its effective date but decided after it became effective.
  2. Whether United States v. White constitutes a change in the law that creates a gross disparity sufficient to satisfy § 1B1.13(b)(6).
  3. Whether Crawley satisfied the statutory requirement of having served at least ten years of imprisonment for purposes of § 1B1.13(b)(6).
  4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for compassionate release.

Holdings

  1. The amended policy statement governs compassionate‑release motions decided after its effective date, even if the motion was filed earlier.
  2. White effectually changed the law, creating a gross disparity between Crawley’s 188‑month sentence and the 84‑month sentence he would have received without the career‑offender enhancement.
  3. Crawley has not served ten years of actual imprisonment; good‑time credits do not satisfy the statutory requirement.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion; the motion is properly denied because Crawley failed to satisfy the ten‑year service requirement and rehabilitation alone is insufficient.

Key quotations

We conclude that the amended policy statement governs Crawley’s motion, even though Crawley filed his motion before the amended policy statement took effect. (at 382)
The phrase “served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment” carries its ordinary meaning. (at 14)

Factual background

Crawley was sentenced in December 2016 to 188 months for a federal drug‑trafficking conviction, with a career‑offender enhancement based on a 2007 Virginia drug distribution conviction and a 2009 Virginia robbery conviction. He sought compassionate release, claiming that the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. White (2022) eliminated the robbery predicate for the enhancement and that his COVID‑19 health risk and rehabilitation were extraordinary and compelling reasons.

Procedural history

The district court denied Crawley's motion for compassionate release twice in 2020‑2021 and again in March 2024 after the Sentencing Commission amended its policy statement. Crawley appealed, arguing that the White decision changed the law and that he satisfied the 10‑year service requirement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…