Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11319/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Haydee Luzula
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11319

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA HAYDEE LUZULA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20221-PAS-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-11319 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11319

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Maria Luzula, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of her

motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The 

district court ruled that Luzula failed to identify extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for early release, see United States Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b) (Nov. 2023), and alternatively, in 

the light of the “extremely serious” nature of the offense, a sentence reduction would “diminish the purpose of her sentence.” We 

affirm.

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).

We need not address Luzula’s argument that the district 

court failed to address the combination of factors constituting extraordinary and compelling reasons for her release, see U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13(b)(5), because Luzula abandoned any challenge to the determination that the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), weighed against her release. Where a judgment is based 

on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must challenge 

every ground supporting it. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 

F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). 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. 

USCA11 Case: 24-11319 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 2 of 3
24-11319 Opinion of the Court 3

2021). Because Luzula abandoned any challenge to the independent ground that the sentencing factors weighed against granting a 

sentence reduction, we affirm. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. 

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

ruling that the sentencing factors weighed against Luzula’s release. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although it did not explicitly state that it 

had considered the statutory sentencing factors, the district court

explained the seriousness of the offense in extorting $2 million 

from over 8,000 victims and that the purposes of her sentence 

would not be served by a sentence reduction. These statements reflect consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offense 

and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for law, and provide just punishment. See 

id. § 3553(a)(1)–(2); United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (holding that although the district court did not state it 

considered the statutory sentencing factors, it was sufficient that 

the record showed it had considered them). And the district court 

did not commit a clear error of judgment by weighing the seriousness of the offense more heavily than the mitigating evidence she 

presented in her motion. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1240–41.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-11319 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 3 of 3