USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13466 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD LEE REAVES, a.k.a. Donald Reaves,
Defendant-Appellant. ____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00082-CLM-JHE-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13466
Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Reaves, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. Reaves raises three issues on appeal. He argues that: (1) his medical conditions combined with COVID-19 were “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for his release; (2) the district court failed to properly balance the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac- tors; and (3) he was not a danger to the community. 2 After careful review, we affirm. I. A jury found Reaves guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and received a below-guidelines sentence of 192 months’ imprisonment.
1 Reaves’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED because the legal issues in this case are not complex, and Reaves has shown himself to be capa- ble of presenting his arguments. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993); Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). 2 Reaves also argues that we wrongly decided United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). This argument is without merit. We are bound by that decision. United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 3 of 8
21-13466 Opinion of the Court 3
Years later, in May 2021, Reaves filed the instant motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act. 3 He asserted that he was eligible for compassionate release because his medical con- ditions and COVID-19 combined constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. He contended that the facility in which he was incarcerated had a high infection rate and was not well-equipped to treat COVID-19. He asserted that he was a 61-year-old with high blood pressure, asthma, a heart murmur, and severe obesity. He explained that he previously had contracted COVID-19, which left him with breathing problems, chest pain, headaches, and fatigue. Reaves further contended that the district court should con- sider his post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation in determining whether he was a danger to society. He pointed out that he had maintained employment in prison, had accepted responsibility for his actions, and had had no disciplinary infractions. 4 He asserted that he was not a danger to society or a flight risk.
3 Reaves first filed a first motion for compassionate release in October 2020, and the district court denied it. Reaves did not appeal the denial. Instead, he filed a motion to reconsider the denial. The district court construed the mo- tion to reconsider as a new motion for compassionate release, the one at issue in this appeal. 4 Reaves also asked the district court to release him to home confinement. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to do so. Because Reaves offers no argument on appeal on this issue, he has abandoned it. United States v. Cun- ningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998). USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13466
Reaves attached various records to his motion, including medical records which showed that he had contracted COVID-19 in February 2021 but had recovered and no longer had symptoms. The medical records also showed that he had hypertension and was taking medication for the disease. The government did not respond to Reaves’s motion. The district court denied the motion. The court concluded that Reaves had not shown extraordinary and compelling circum- stances warranting compassionate release. The court determined that the § 3553(a) factors did not support Reaves’s early release. The court noted Reaves’s post-sentencing conduct and rehabilita- tion efforts but nonetheless found release inappropriate, citing the nature and circumstances of his offense, his history and character- istics (including his previous convictions), the deterrent value of adequate punishment, and the potential danger to the community. This is Reaves’s appeal. II. We review a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) mo- tion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion if it ap- plies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term of imprisonment but may do so to the extent permitted by statute. USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 5 of 8
21-13466 Opinion of the Court 5
United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020). A dis- trict court may reduce a term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) if (1) as relevant here, there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for doing so within the meaning of the appli- cable policy statement found in § 1B1.13 of the United States Sen- tencing Guidelines, (2) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor doing so, and (3) doing so would not endanger any person or the com- munity. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). Because a district court “must find that all necessary conditions are satisfied before it grants a reduction,” where “at least one of the compassionate-release con- ditions was not satisfied, it cannot—as either a syntactical or logical matter—have been error for the district court to skip assessment of another condition.” Id. at 1237–38. The policy statements applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) are found in § 1B1.13. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018). As relevant here, the commentary to § 1B1.13 lists a defendant’s medical condition and age as possible “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence re- duction. Id. § 1B1.13, comment n.1(A). However, a medical condi- tion can only serve as the basis for compassionate release if it is terminal or “substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.” Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13466 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD LEE REAVES, a.k.a. Donald Reaves,
Defendant-Appellant. ____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00082-CLM-JHE-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13466
Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Reaves, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. Reaves raises three issues on appeal. He argues that: (1) his medical conditions combined with COVID-19 were “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for his release; (2) the district court failed to properly balance the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac- tors; and (3) he was not a danger to the community. 2 After careful review, we affirm. I. A jury found Reaves guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and received a below-guidelines sentence of 192 months’ imprisonment.
1 Reaves’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED because the legal issues in this case are not complex, and Reaves has shown himself to be capa- ble of presenting his arguments. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993); Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). 2 Reaves also argues that we wrongly decided United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). This argument is without merit. We are bound by that decision. United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 3 of 8
21-13466 Opinion of the Court 3
Years later, in May 2021, Reaves filed the instant motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act. 3 He asserted that he was eligible for compassionate release because his medical con- ditions and COVID-19 combined constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. He contended that the facility in which he was incarcerated had a high infection rate and was not well-equipped to treat COVID-19. He asserted that he was a 61-year-old with high blood pressure, asthma, a heart murmur, and severe obesity. He explained that he previously had contracted COVID-19, which left him with breathing problems, chest pain, headaches, and fatigue. Reaves further contended that the district court should con- sider his post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation in determining whether he was a danger to society. He pointed out that he had maintained employment in prison, had accepted responsibility for his actions, and had had no disciplinary infractions. 4 He asserted that he was not a danger to society or a flight risk.
3 Reaves first filed a first motion for compassionate release in October 2020, and the district court denied it. Reaves did not appeal the denial. Instead, he filed a motion to reconsider the denial. The district court construed the mo- tion to reconsider as a new motion for compassionate release, the one at issue in this appeal. 4 Reaves also asked the district court to release him to home confinement. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to do so. Because Reaves offers no argument on appeal on this issue, he has abandoned it. United States v. Cun- ningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998). USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13466
Reaves attached various records to his motion, including medical records which showed that he had contracted COVID-19 in February 2021 but had recovered and no longer had symptoms. The medical records also showed that he had hypertension and was taking medication for the disease. The government did not respond to Reaves’s motion. The district court denied the motion. The court concluded that Reaves had not shown extraordinary and compelling circum- stances warranting compassionate release. The court determined that the § 3553(a) factors did not support Reaves’s early release. The court noted Reaves’s post-sentencing conduct and rehabilita- tion efforts but nonetheless found release inappropriate, citing the nature and circumstances of his offense, his history and character- istics (including his previous convictions), the deterrent value of adequate punishment, and the potential danger to the community. This is Reaves’s appeal. II. We review a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) mo- tion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion if it ap- plies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term of imprisonment but may do so to the extent permitted by statute. USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 5 of 8
21-13466 Opinion of the Court 5
United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020). A dis- trict court may reduce a term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) if (1) as relevant here, there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for doing so within the meaning of the appli- cable policy statement found in § 1B1.13 of the United States Sen- tencing Guidelines, (2) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor doing so, and (3) doing so would not endanger any person or the com- munity. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). Because a district court “must find that all necessary conditions are satisfied before it grants a reduction,” where “at least one of the compassionate-release con- ditions was not satisfied, it cannot—as either a syntactical or logical matter—have been error for the district court to skip assessment of another condition.” Id. at 1237–38. The policy statements applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) are found in § 1B1.13. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018). As relevant here, the commentary to § 1B1.13 lists a defendant’s medical condition and age as possible “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence re- duction. Id. § 1B1.13, comment n.1(A). However, a medical condi- tion can only serve as the basis for compassionate release if it is terminal or “substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.” Id. A person also may be eligible for a sentence reduction if, “[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [(“BOP”)], there exists in the USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13466
defendant’s case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with,” the other examples listed. Id. § 1B1.13, comment n.1(D). The policy statement in § 1B1.13 applies to all motions filed under § 3582(c)(1)(A), and thus district courts are bound to apply § 1B1.13’s definition of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir.), cert. de- nied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). We have held that § 1B1.13, comment n.1(D), is not at odds with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act, and that the phrase “[a]s determined by the Di- rector of the [BOP]” could not be replaced with “as determined by a district court.” Id. at 1263. So, courts do not have the freedom to define other extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond those set forth in § 1B1.13 or determined by the Director of the BOP. Id. at 1264. Under § 3553(a), a district court’s sentence must be suffi- cient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sen- tencing: reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting re- spect for the law, providing just punishment, deterring future crim- inal conduct, protecting the public, and providing the defendant with any needed training or treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Section 3553(a) also requires district courts to consider the nature and cir- cumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteris- tics, the kinds of sentences available, the Sentencing Guidelines, any pertinent policy statement, the need to avoid disparate USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 7 of 8
21-13466 Opinion of the Court 7
sentences for defendants with similar records, and the need to pro- vide restitution to any victims. Id. The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit- ted to the sound discretion of the district court. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241. The district court need not address each of the § 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evidence. Id. A sentence may be af- firmed so long as the record reveals that the district court consid- ered a number of the factors. Id. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny- ing Reaves’s motion. First, the court correctly concluded that Reaves had not shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons jus- tifying compassionate release. Reaves’s medical records show that his medical conditions are being treated, are manageable in prison, and do not interfere with his ability to provide self-care. And we have denied similar motions for compassionate release where a prisoner’s medical conditions are manageable in prison, even when those conditions may place a prisoner at an increased risk from COVID-19. See United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that the district court did not err in denying compassionate release to a prisoner with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and coronary artery disease, even though the pris- oner was at increased risk from COVID-19, because his conditions were manageable in prison). Further, to the extent that Reaves re- lied on his lingering COVID-19 symptoms, his medical records in- dicate that he recovered from his COVID-19 infection and no longer has symptoms. But even if he continues to suffer from some USCA11 Case: 21-13466 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13466
lingering symptoms, he has not shown how they interfere with his ability to provide self-care. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that one of the necessary conditions for the granting of compassionate release had not been satisfied. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1238. Second, and alternatively, Reaves has not shown that the district court abused its broad discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by weighing the nature and circumstances of his offense and his criminal history more heavily than his efforts at rehabilitation. See id. at 1241. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that a second necessary factor for compassionate release was unsat- isfied. In light of the above, we need not address Reaves’s argu- ment that the district court erred in determining that he was a dan- ger to the community. See id. at 1238. 5 In sum, we must affirm the district court’s denial of Reaves’s motion for compassionate release. AFFIRMED.
5 The district court also denied Reaves’s motion based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Because we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion on other grounds, we do not address whether Reaves failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.