[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11208

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:99-cr-08078-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

WILLIAM ANDREW KINSEY, III, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 30, 2021)

Before MARTIN, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge: 

William Kinsey, III, is currently incarcerated as a result of a series of 

robberies he committed in 1999. For these crimes, which netted him just under 

USCA11 Case: 20-11208 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

$5,000, he is serving a sentence of more than 137 years’ imprisonment. His long 

sentence was partially the result of Mr. Kinsey’s use of firearms during the 

robberies, and the then-mandatory “stacking” of his firearm offenses. By 

“stacking,” we refer to the government’s charging of multiple 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c)(1) offenses in the same indictment, each of which then required a 

consecutive sentence. Today, the law does not allow the type of “stacked” 

sentence Mr. Kinsey received when there are two firearm charges in the same 

criminal proceeding. See First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 

115-391, § 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5221–22 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). Mr. 

Kinsey’s co-defendant, who pled guilty and testified against Kinsey, served a 

sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. 

In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act which, as relevant here, 

modified the process for seeking compassionate release. Previously, only the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) could file a motion seeking reduction of 

a prisoner’s sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). The First Step Act now allows courts to consider 

motions filed by defendants themselves. Before bringing such a motion, a 

defendant must either exhaust his administrative remedies or wait for “the lapse of 

30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s 

facility, whichever is earlier.” First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 

USCA11 Case: 20-11208 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

Stat. 5194, 5239 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). The First Step Act did 

nothing to change the requirement that when adjudicating compassionate release 

motions, district courts must ensure that any sentence reduction is “consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). 

On January 31, 2020, more than thirty days after he submitted a request to 

BOP (which never responded), Mr. Kinsey filed a motion for compassionate 

release in federal court. He asserted that he is deserving of compassionate release 

because: (1) his long sentence was partially a result of the now defunct practice of 

stacking his § 924(c) charges; (2) he was punished much more harshly that his codefendant on account of his exercise of his Sixth Amendment right to trial; and 

(3) his impressive record of rehabilitation (despite his de facto life sentence). He 

says these facts together constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warranting his compassionate release. 

A few days after Mr. Kinsey filed his motion, the District Court summarily 

denied it. Mr. Kinsey argues on appeal that the District Court is not bound by the

only policy statement the Sentencing Commission has promulgated describing 

what “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warrant compassionate release. That 

is because the policy statement contains language indicating that the BOP Director 

must file the motion. See United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13 (stating 

USCA11 Case: 20-11208 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

that “[u]pon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,” the district court 

may entertain a motion for compassionate release). Mr. Kinsey says that language 

means the statement applies only to motions filed by the BOP Director. And 

because Mr. Kinsey filed his own motion for compassionate release, he argues that 

policy statement does not apply to his motion. 

Mr. Kinsey’s argument is now foreclosed by United States v. Bryant, ___ 

F.3d ___, 2021 WL 1827158 (11th Cir. May 7, 2021). Bryant held that Guideline

§ 1B1.13 and the accompanying application note apply to defendant-filed 

compassionate release motions because the statement is “capable of being applied” 

to those motions. Id. at *1. Also, Bryant reasoned that the language in the 

statement indicating that the BOP Director had to file the compassionate release 

motion is “prefatory” and does not limit the applicability of the policy statement. 

Id. at *11. 

As a result, the District Court here was limited to considering the

“extraordinary and compelling” reasons outlined in the policy statement and 

accompanying application note. The application note specifies that “extraordinary 

and compelling reasons” exist when a defendant presents one of a set of medical, 

age-related, or family circumstances, or: “[a]s determined by the Director of the 

Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant’s case an extraordinary and 

compelling reason other than, or in combination with,” the specific reasons 

USCA11 Case: 20-11208 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

outlined in the application note. USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). Mr. Kinsey does 

not claim to have any of the age, family, or medical reasons outlined in the 

application note. Nor has the BOP Director determined that Mr. Kinsey has 

“other” extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. Id. 

The District Court’s order denying Mr. Kinsey’s motion for compassionate 

release is 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11208 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 5 of 5