Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-12033/USCOURTS-ca11-24-12033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harlan Decoste
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12033

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HARLAN DECOSTE, 

a.k.a. Money King, 

a.k.a. Moneyking_111, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

USCA11 Case: 24-12033 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-12033

D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cr-60172-WPD-1

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and ABUDU, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Harlan Decoste, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the sua 

sponte denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The government moves for summary affirmance. 

We grant that motion and affirm. 

Summary disposition is appropriate when “the position of 

one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can 

be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We 

review the denial of a section 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).

Decoste argues that a change in law establishes that he 

would receive a shorter sentence if he were sentenced today and 

constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. 

See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(6) 

(Nov. 2023). But we need not address that argument because Decoste abandoned any challenge to the determination that the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), weighed against his 

release. An appellant forfeits an issue by failing to raise it in his initial brief. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th 

Cir. 2014). And where a judgment is based on multiple, 

USCA11 Case: 24-12033 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 2 of 3
24-12033 Opinion of the Court 3

independent grounds, an appellant must challenge every ground 

supporting it. Id. at 680. We may affirm a denial of compassionate 

release if the statutory sentencing factors weigh against relief. See 

United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). Decoste discussed the statutory sentencing factors for the first time in 

his response to the motion for summary affirmance, which is too 

late. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 683. Because Decoste abandoned any

challenge to the independent ground that the sentencing factors 

weighed against granting a sentence reduction, we affirm. See id. at 

680. 

In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

ruling that the sentencing factors weighed against Decoste’s release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court determined that the 

nature and circumstances of the offense in operating a “fraud factory” that caused millions of dollars in losses, Decoste’s conduct 

compared with his codefendants, the need to promote respect for 

law, and the need to deter together weighed more heavily than any

mitigating circumstances. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1240–41. And the 

district court committed no clear error in that judgment.

We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance of the order denying Decoste’s motion for compassionate release. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-12033 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 3 of 3