USA v. Cooper et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 8:14-cr-00083-JKB Document 341 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
Plaintiff |
uO . * Case No. JKB-14-0083 |
ANTONIO LAMAR COOPER *
Defendant *
* * * * * * * * , * * * *

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Defendant has filed a Motion seeking compassionate release (ECF No. 325). The
Government has filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 334), and the Defendant has filed a reply .
(ECF No. 338). The Court has carefully reviewed the respective submissions and relevant portions
of the extensive record in this case. The Motion will be DENIED.

First, the Court concludes that there are no extraordinary or compelling reasons justifying
compassionate release. The Defendant contends that there has been a significant change in the
law and cites Dean y. United States, 581 U.S. 62 (2017). But the record contains no suggestion
that the sentence imposed in this case would have been different if Dean had been decided prior
. to the adjudication and sentencing in this matter. The Dean opinion does not compel a different
result or process followed by the sentencing judge. Second, adopting the reasoning set for in the ©
Government’s brief (ECF No. 334), the Court does not find that the Defendant received an
“unusually long sentence.” The sentencing judge found that the Defendant intended to murder‘one
of his victims. That specific circumstance, combined with other aggravating facts detailed in the
record at the time of sentencing, undercut any argument that a sentence of 241 months was in any

way unusual, inappropriate, or excessive. Finally, when the Court applies the factors set out in /8

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 8:14-cr-00083-JKB Document 341 _ Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2

U.S.C. § 3553(a), it concludes that the sentence imposed remains entirely appropriate and should
not be altered. This was an extremely violent offense, and the Defendant was at the center of that
extreme conduct. Among the multiple factors that must be considered under § 3553(a), the facts
of this case require the Court to give protection of the public the highest priority, and when the
Court does make that factor primary, the sentence imposed remains “sufficient, but not more than
necessary.”

The Court notes that the Defendant’s course while incarcerated has been less than
exemplary. The Defendant’s disciplinary record at the BOP reveals four violations including
possession of a dangerous weapon. '

Upon the foregoing, the Defendant’s motion for compassionate release (ECF No. 325) is
DENIED.

Dated this AS day of December, 2025

BY THE COURT:

| Fo pn . iD nadler

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge