[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13204

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA BLAKE WISE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00300-WS-N-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13204

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Wise, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its denial 

of Wise’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act.1

The government, in turn, moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely 

or, alternatively, for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing. 

After careful review, we deny the government’s motion to dismiss 

as untimely, grant its motion for summary affirmance, and deny as 

moot its motion to stay the briefing schedule.

I. Background

In 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Wise on three counts 

of drug-related offenses. In 2018, he was sentenced to 84 months’ 

imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release.

In 2022, Wise filed a pro se motion for compassionate release 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Citing decisions from other 

circuits, he argued that the district court could consider “other 

factors” as extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

compassionate release under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. He asserted that 

his mental health issues, including ADHD, bipolar disorder, and 

severe anxiety, put him at greater risk of neurological and mental 

complications associated with a COVID-19 infection, which is 

1 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”).

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 2 of 10
22-13204 Opinion of the Court 3

more likely to occur in a prison environment. He also stated that 

he had been denied a particular drug treatment, which was 

recommended at sentencing, because of an error in his presentence 

investigation report (“PSI”) stating that he was “sober from meth 

since 2009.” Wise listed six non-medical issues that he felt were 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release: 

(1) hisindictment was duplicitous because the three counts charged 

the same crime three times; (2) his federal sentence ran consecutive 

to his “discharged state sentence” because the district court “never 

expressly ordered it not to run concurrent” and his counsel did not 

raise the issue; (3) the district court applied the wrong base offense 

level in determining his sentence; (4) he substantially cooperated 

with the government; (5) his father was assaulted and battered by 

marshals during Wise’s period of undercover work for the 

government; and (6) the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had refused to 

credit him with time served despite the sentencing judge’s 

statement that he would be entitled to it. Finally, he argued that 

the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favored his release. 

On June 29, 2022, the district court denied the motion 

without ordering the government to respond. It found that Wise 

failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances 

because he did not assert that he had a terminal illness or that his 

medical conditions interfered with his ability to provide self-care in 

prison. The district court then found that his six non-medical 

reasons did not fall within the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy 

statement, seeU.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, so they could not support a finding 

of extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13204

The court finally noted that, because Wise failed to establish that

extraordinary and compelling reasons existed, it did not need to 

address either the § 3553(a) factors or relevant policy statements. 

Wise moved for reconsideration of the order, which he 

asserted was placed in the mail on July 22, 2022. He argued that 

the district court failed to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

and improperly applied or ignored the rules governing 

compassionate release. He reasserted his contention that district 

courts have discretion to define “other reasons” under U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.13. He alleged that the court applied its personal opinion 

rather than the relevant facts and law. He also alleged that the 

district court had never approved a motion for compassionate 

release and asked that, if it had, the court provide him “the details 

of each recipient.” Finally, he repeated his arguments that his

mental illness, his lack of drug abuse or mental health treatment in 

prison, and his other six non-medical issues constituted 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances. 

On August 9, 2022, the district court denied the motion, 

finding that Wise “relie[d] on vituperation and his personal 

rejection of the governing legal principles, [and] identifie[d] no 

arguable error in the [c]ourt’s analysis.”

Wise filed a pro se notice of appeal, which he placed in the 

mail on September 16, 2022. Wise designated for appeal the district 

court’s August 9 denial of reconsideration. On appeal, Wise argues 

that the district court abused its discretion by ruling on his motion 

for compassionate release without the government’s opposition 

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 4 of 10
22-13204 Opinion of the Court 5

and ignoring his six extraordinary and compelling reasons, which 

he repeats here. As to the August 9 order, Wise argues that the 

district court’s order did not provide sufficient explanation to 

determine whether its ruling was based on the same grounds cited 

in its June order, and thus, to allow for meaningful appellate 

review. The remainder of his arguments focus on the merits of his 

motion for compassionate release and the district court’s denial of 

that motion. 

The government moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely 

and for lack of jurisdiction and moved for summary affirmance of 

the district court’s denial of Wise’s motions for compassionate 

release and reconsideration. It argues that the appeal is untimely 

as to both the district court’s order denying compassionate release 

and its order denying reconsideration, or alternatively, that 

summary affirmance is appropriate as a matter of law because the 

district court properly denied the motions. As to summary 

affirmance, the government first argues that the district court was 

not required to explain its decision adequately enough to allow for 

meaningful appellate review because that particular order was not 

a sentencing decision. It further argues that, regardless, the court 

did sufficiently explain its rational because it stated that Wise failed 

to identify any arguable error in the court’s analysis. The 

government also moves to stay the briefing schedule pending the 

resolution of its motion and requests that, should we deny its 

motion, its motion be used as its responsive brief.

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13204

We granted the government’s motion to dismiss with 

respect to the district court’s June 29 order denying compassionate 

release. As to the district court’s August 9 order denying 

reconsideration, we remanded the case to the district court for the 

limited purpose of determining whether Wise had shown 

excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 

appeal period. We deferred ruling on the government’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal as to the August 9 order and its alternative 

motion for summary affirmance pending the limited remand. 

Subsequently, the district court issued an order finding good cause 

for the late filing, extending the time for filing a notice of appeal, 

and deeming timely the appeal as to the denial of reconsideration.

II. Discussion

Summary disposition is appropriate where “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).2 

We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 

(11th Cir. 2004). A district court abuses its discretion when it 

applies an incorrect legal standard or makes a clear error of 

2 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (holding that 

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to the close of business on 

September 30, 1981, are binding in the Eleventh Circuit).

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 6 of 10
22-13204 Opinion of the Court 7

judgment. Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 

2015).

Although motions for reconsideration of a district court 

order in a criminal action are not expressly authorized by the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, both “the Supreme Court 

and this Court have permitted motions for reconsideration in 

criminal cases . . . .” United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1199 

(11th Cir. 2010).

“[T]here must be enough, in the record or the court’s order, 

to allow for meaningful appellate review” of a district court’s 

sentencing decision. United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th 

Cir. 2017). When a court fails to explain its sentencing decision 

adequately enough to allow for meaningful appellate review, it 

abuses its discretion. Id. “This principle applies not only when a 

court imposes a sentence, but also when it determines whether or 

not to reduce a defendant’s sentence.” Id.

District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term 

of imprisonment but may do so within § 3582(c)’s provisions. 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th 

Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). Section 3582(c) 

provides that:

[t]he court . . . upon motion of the defendant after the 

defendant . . . may reduce the term of 

imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set 

forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 

applicable, if it finds that

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13204

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction . . .

and that such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides the 

applicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(1)(A). The application 

notes to § 1B1.13 list four categories of extraordinary and 

compelling reasons: (A) the defendant’s medical condition, (B) his 

age, (C) his family circumstances, and (D) other reasons. Id., 

comment. n.1(A)–(D). The defendant’s medical condition qualifies 

as an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate 

release if he is “suffering from a serious physical or medical

condition” that “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., comment. n.1(A). In addition to determining that 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction, § 

1B1.13 states that the district court must also determine that the 

defendant is not a danger to the safety of others or the community, 

as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Id. § 1B1.13(2).

Notably, in Bryant, we held that, following the enactment of 

the First Step Act, § 1B1.13 continued to constrain a district court’s 

ability to evaluate whether extraordinary and compelling reasons 

were present and that “Application Note 1(D) does not grant 

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 8 of 10
22-13204 Opinion of the Court 9

discretion to courts to develop ‘other reasons’ that might justify a 

reduction in a defendant’s sentence.” 996 F.3d at 1248.

“Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court must find that all necessary 

conditions are satisfied before it grants a reduction.” United States 

v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the 

absence of any one of the necessary conditions—support in the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, extraordinary and compelling reasons, and 

adherence to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13’s policy statement—forecloses a 

sentence reduction. Id. at 1237–38. Additionally, “nothing on the 

face of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a court to conduct the 

compassionate-release analysis in any particular order.” Id. at 1237.

Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a criminal 

defendant must file a notice of appeal in the district court within 14 

days after the entry of the order being appealed, but the district 

court may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal not 

to exceed 30 days upon a finding of excusable neglect or good 

cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), 4(b)(4). Here, as an initial matter, 

the district court extended the time for filing a notice of appeal. 

Accordingly, Wise’s notice of appeal is timely as to the order 

denying his motion for reconsideration.

As to summary affirmance, the government’s position is 

clearly right as a matter of law. First, the district court sufficiently 

explained its decision to deny the motion to reconsider. The court 

correctly stated that Wise had not identified any arguable error in 

the court’s prior analysis. Second, it was not permitted to consider 

“other reasons” and was not required to analyze the § 3553(a) 

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 22-13204

factors once it determined that Wise had not presented 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See Bryant, 996 F. 3d 

at 1248; Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38, 1240. Moreover, contrary to 

Wise’s assertions, there is nothing to indicate that the district court 

abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in 

denying his motion for compassionate release, and the record is 

sufficient for meaningful appellate review. Johnson, 877 F.3d at 997.

Wise raises no other discernable arguments challenging the 

district court’s denial of reconsideration, so he has abandoned all 

other arguments. See United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 713 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (noting the “long standing rule that issues and 

contentions not raised in the initial brief are deemed abandoned”). 

Thus, the government is clearly right as a matter of law. Groendyke, 

406 F.2d at 1161–62.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we DENY the government’s motion to dismiss

as untimely, GRANT its motion for summary affirmance, and 

DENY as moot its motion to stay the briefing schedule and request 

to construe its motion as its brief.

USCA11 Case: 22-13204 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 10 of 10