United States of America v. Richard Scalea

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 21-2631
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD SCALEA,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Criminal Action No. 3-18-cr-00620-001)
District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 2, 2022
Before: MCKEE, AMBRO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 15, 2022)
___________
OPINION*
___________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Richard Scalea, an inmate at Fort Dix Federal Correctional Institution, appeals the
District Court’s denial of his compassionate release motion. We affirm the Court’s
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
judgment.
Following exchanges with an undercover officer in an incest chatroom, police
searched Scalea’s apartment and found a large collection of child pornography. Scalea
pled guilty to one count of distributing it, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), and was
sentenced in February 2019 to 120 months’ imprisonment. He moved for early release in
May 2021 under the compassionate release statute.
That statute permits a district court to reduce a federal inmate’s sentence if
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a court’s decision on a compassionate release motion for
abuse of discretion and will not reverse “unless we are left with ‘a definite and firm
conviction that [it] committed a clear error of judgment.’” United States v. Andrews, 12
F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Pawlowski,
967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020)).1
The Court here denied Scalea’s motion, concluding that he did not demonstrate
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Though he premised his motion on
COVID-19 concerns, the Court found that Scalea already had the virus and was now fully
vaccinated. It acknowledged his preexisting medical conditions (which include asthma,
hypertension, and heart problems) but found that these conditions did not place Scalea at
greater risk of severe illness should he be reinfected, given the effectiveness of his vaccine
at preventing serious COVID-19 complications. Moreover, with few to no positive cases
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
at his detention facility, the Court found Scalea’s present risk of reinfection to be minimal.
And while it noted Scalea’s “long COVID” symptoms (which include ongoing fatigue, bad
headaches, and brain fog), the Court reviewed his health records and determined that these
symptoms were being adequately treated by medical professionals and thus could not
justify compassionate release. We see no abuse of discretion in its judgment.
Scalea does not convince us otherwise. He faults the Court for not spending more
time discussing his post-COVID symptoms but does not refute its finding that the prison
is managing his medical conditions. He notes (correctly) that vaccination does not rule out
reinfection, but this does not diminish that vaccination mitigates the risk of COVID-19
complications and that infections at Fort Dix have decreased. While he details many
inadequacies in Fort Dix’s response to the pandemic, we cannot say the District Court
abused its discretion in holding that Scalea’s current circumstances do not justify relief.2
See United States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747, 751 (6th Cir. 2021) (“[W]ith access to the
vaccine, an inmate largely faces the same risk from COVID-19 as those who are not
incarcerated.”).
* * * * *
Our prison system, like so many others, was often ill-equipped to handle COVID-
19. But because the District Court did not err in concluding that Scalea failed to show
2 To order compassionate release, a district court must conclude both that there are
extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying the inmate’s release and that release is
appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 329–
30. The Court here held that even if Scalea met the first prong, the § 3553(a) factors would
still weigh against his release. We are satisfied that this conclusion too was a sound
exercise of the Court’s discretion.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, we affirm.

-- 4 of 4 --