Memorandum and Order — United States v. Brown (Dkt. 82, D. Md.)

Summary

A memorandum and order filed March 11, 2026 in United States v. Kwame Brown, Criminal No. JKB-23-0049, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, denying Brown's Motions for Compassionate Release and Modification of Sentence (ECF Nos. 64, 65). It recounts that Brown pled guilty on August 7, 2024 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing on October 15, 2024 the Guidelines range was 84 to 105 months, the parties jointly recommended 66 months, and the court imposed a 54-month sentence. United States District Judge James K. Bredar signed the order.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:23-cr-00049-JKB Document 82 Filed 03/11/26 Page1of4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
v. CRIMINAL NO. JKB-23-0049
KWAME BROWN, ) . |
Defendant. | *
eo & ‘ & t a & & a eo
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

| Pending before the Court are Defendant Kwame Brown’s Motions for Compassionate
Release and Modification of Sentence (ECF Nos. 64, 65). The Motions will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND |
On August 7, 2024, Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF No. 48.) On October 15, 2024, the Court sentenced
Defendant. (ECF No. 57.) At the sentencing hearing, the parties agreed that Defendant’s total
offense level was 23 and ‘that his Criminal History Category was V. (ECF No. 60 at 5.) This
yielded a Guidelines range of 84 to 105 months of incarceration. (id.) However, the parties jointly
recommended that the Court impose a 66-month sentence. (/d. at 12.) That was primarily because
while Defendant was in pretrial detention in a Maryland state facility, he suffered serious medical
issues which made his period of incarceration more difficult than it is for most detainees. (Jd. at
9.) The Court imposed a 54-month sentence, which was a further downward variance. (/d. at 36.)
The Court explained that it considered Defendant’s medical issues as well as his family ties and a
demonstrated desire to rehabilitate himself. (/d. at 30-36.) But the Court also emphasized

Defendant's substantial criminal history, including a conviction for armed robbery. (/d. at 31.)

Case 1:23-cr-00049-JKB Document 82 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2of4

Defendant has now moved for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), and the Court
has appointed counsel for him.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Compassionate Release

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may modify a convicted defendant’s
sentence when “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and such relief is
permitted by “the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.”

1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

Defendant contends that a combination of inadequate medical care, lack of prison
programming, and his rehabilitation constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
release. (ECF No. 73 at 2-3.) The Court disagrees. The Court Tecognizes that Defendant faces
serious medical problems, but the Court also took that into account when it originally imposed
sentence. (ECF No. 60 at 30.) And Defendant has not demonstrated that his health has worsened _
so much that it warrants release. Instead, his medical records demonstrate that he has received
consistent care while in BOP custody (see generally ECF No. 80-2), and at times, Defendant has
been responsible for his own health issues by refusing to take prescribed medications and by
missing appointments (e.g., id. at 5, 10, 11). As for the lack of programming, the Court recognizes
that Defendant is ineligible for some prison programs because of the short length of his sentence.
The Court is sympathetic to Defendant in this regard, but this too does not weigh in favor of release.
As the Court has previously held, even “harsh conditions of imprisonment” such as those
“occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic are not, without more, sufficiently extraordinary and
compelling to warrant release.” United States v. Jones, No. CR JKB-12-0247, 2023 WL 203819,

at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 17, 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, Defendant has completed
2

Case 1:23-cr-00049-JKB Document 82 Filed 03/11/26 Page3of4

several courses while in prison (ECF No. 73-2), but “rehabilitation alone cannot constitute an
extraordinary and compelling reason for release.” United States v. Davis, No. 21-6960, 2022 WL
127900, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2022). The Court commends Defendant’s desire to rehabilitate
himself and return to society, but he has.not met the “high bar” of showing extraordinary and
compelling reasons justifying release. See United States v. Horton, No. 1:22-CR-00196-JRR-1,
2025 WL 2144852, at *4 (D. Md. July 29, 2025); accord Jones, 2023 WL 203819, at *2 (holding
that a defendant had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons despite harsh prison
conditions and significant health problems).
2. §3553(a) Sentencing Factors
Even had the Court found that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to support
release, the Court still would have denied a sentence reduction because the § 3553(a) factors do
not warrant release. The Court finds that Defendant’s history and characteristics as well as the
seriousness of the offense weigh most heavily against early release. Defendant has a lengthy
criminal history. (ECF No. 56 at 7-12.) He was involved in drug trafficking and was convicted
of armed robbery. (/d. at 8, 10.) Even so, he chose to possess “a lethal weapon and ammunition.”
(ECF No. 60 at 32.) While this crime was not violent, it was extremely serious. The Court is also
cognizant of the need to avoid sentencing disparities. The Court already imposed a lenient
sentence given Defendant’s criminal history. A further reduction would create a disparity, not
eliminate one. The Court again applauds Defendant’s steps to rehabilitate himself, and it is
encouraged by his progress. But on balance, the § 3553(a) factors weigh against a reduction in .
Defendant’s sentence.
B. Motion for Modification of Sentence to Home Detention

In the alternative, Defendant moves to serve the remainder of his sentence in home

3

Case 1:23-cr-00049-JKB Document 82 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4-of 4

detention. However, “[t]he discretion to release a prisoner to home confinement lies solely with
the Attorney General.” United States v. Snell, No. CR CCB-17-602, 2020 WL 4053823, at *1 (D.
Md. July 20, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court does not possess the
authority to modify Defendant’s sentence to home detention.
III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions for
Compassionate Release and Modification of Sentence (ECF Nos. 64, 65) are DENIED.
DATED this _/0_ day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:

Pine 1K IBade

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

File and source

File

82-4d0ccc83.pdf

Size

113,910 bytes

SHA-256

4d0ccc83fb8344e481678feafc8b7891e98dc0a5523caa4c43158ea130dee2f1

Our copy

82-4d0ccc83.pdf