Opinion
5:19-cr-00061
12-06-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. RAYQUAN KHALID NEWTON, Defendant.
ORDER
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2022, for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Motion for Reduction of Sentence, ECF No. 28, is DENIED.
2. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 29, is DENIED.
A defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointment of counsel when seeking compassionate relief. See United States v. Dorsey, No. 14-323-1, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28178, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2021). However, several circuit courts have held that the court has discretion to appoint counsel in such cases. See id. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not established a standard for the appointment of counsel in compassionate release cases so this Court will consider the standard followed in deciding motions for counsel in other contexts. See id. When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the court first considers whether the claim has some arguable merit in fact and law. See Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002) (listing additional factors and citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)). See also Gordon v. Gonzalez, 232 Fed.Appx. 153, 156 n.4 (3d Cir. 2007); Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984). For the reasons explained in the Opinion, Newton's request for compassionate release completely lacks merit.