Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13669/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13669-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13669

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00012-WLS-TQL-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13669

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the District 

Court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. He argues 

that his unusually long sentence and his role as the sole caregiver 

for his ailing mother constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief. In support, he invokes the November 2023 amendments to § 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines. But Johnson abandoned many arguments he raised below, and the 2023 amendments do not apply retroactively. We affirm.

I.

In 2013, Johnson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. The District Court sentenced 

him to life imprisonment, but later reduced his sentence twice—

first to 360 months under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines and then to 264 months under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35.

Johnson has moved for post-conviction relief several times

over the years, including motions under the First Step Act and prior 

motions for compassionate release. In his latest compassionate release motion,1 Johnson argued that the length of his sentence, 

1 Johnson filed the motion for compassionate release on October 31, 2022. He 

then filed two motions requesting status updates before the District Court denied his motion for compassionate relief and the pending status updates. Six 

days after the denial, Johnson submitted a new motion for compassionate 

USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-13669 Opinion of the Court 3

sentencing disparities, and his inability to participate in the Bureau 

of Prisons’ Residential Drug Treatment Program amounted to extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The District Court 

denied the motion. Johnson timely appeals.2

II.

To evaluate Johnson’s claims, we apply a two-step framework. First, we review de novo whether he is eligible for a sentence 

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Giron, 15 

F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). If eligibility is established, we then 

review the District Court’s denial of his motion for abuse of discretion. Id. 

Eligibility for compassionate release depends on three factors: (1) whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists; 

(2) whether the requested sentence reduction aligns with § 1B1.13

of the Sentencing Guidelines; and (3) whether the § 3553(a) factors 

favor relief. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 

2021). If any factor is unmet, the District Court may deny relief 

without analyzing the others. Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348. 

release and another motion for a status update regarding his earlier motion.

The District Court dismissed both new motions as moot, finding the compassionate release motion duplicative of the one it had just denied. This appeal is 

about the denial of Johnson’s October 31, 2021, motion. 

2 Johnson timely filed his initial brief, and the Government filed a timely response. But Johnson later submitted a reply brief that was both untimely and 

non-compliant. See Fed. R. App. P. 31(a). Accordingly, we cannot consider his 

reply brief.

USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13669

Before addressing the merits of Johnson’s claims, we must 

clarify the scope of the issues he preserved on appeal. Arguments 

not raised in an appellant’s initial brief are typically abandoned. 

United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2022). And 

here, Johnson has abandoned several arguments he raised in the 

District Court by failing to raise them in his initial brief. These include (1) his eligibility for First Step Act relief, (2) his claim that his 

ineligibility for the Residential Drug Treatment Program constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate 

release, and (3) his assertion of unwarranted sentencing disparities 

among similarly situated defendants. Because Johnson did not address these claims in his initial brief, we do not consider them further.

Turning to the merits of Johnson’s remaining arguments, he 

contends he has new family circumstances and that his sentence 

qualifies as unusually long under the 2023 amendments to § 1B1.13

of the Guidelines. These arguments, however, are misplaced. 

When reviewing a District Court’s application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines, we apply the version in effect at the time of the District 

Court’s decision. United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181, 1184 

(11th Cir. 2011). The decision at issue here—handed down in October 2023—predates the November 2023 amendment that Johnson relies on. 

True, we can consider a clarifying amendment to the Guidelines. Id. at 1185. But we do not retroactively apply a substantive 

change. Id. And the 2023 amendment altered the text of the 

USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-13669 Opinion of the Court 5

Guideline, indicating a substantive change. See id. So while Johnson 

is correct that the 2023 amendment introduced unusually long sentences as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” that the District Court could consider, his reliance on that amendment is misplaced. 

The upshot is that the amendment Johnson relies on does

not apply in this appeal. But as the government points out, nothing 

precludes Johnson from filing a new motion for compassionate relief in the District Court based on the 2023 amendment. 

III.

Johnson abandoned significant arguments raised in the District Court, and the 2023 Sentencing Guideline amendment he relies on does not apply retroactively. The District Court correctly 

applied the law and did not abuse its discretion. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 5 of 5