[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12690

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60310-BB-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DONDRE MANTACK, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 20, 2021)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, MARTIN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 1 of 4
2

Dondre Mantack, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion 

for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mantack argues that his 

condition of asplenia during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an extraordinary 

and compelling reason supporting compassionate release, and he argues that the 

district court erred by failing to conduct any research on the role of the spleen in 

the human immune system. The district court found that Mantack failed to offer 

any evidence that his asplenia placed him at a higher risk of suffering from 

COVID-19. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Because section 3582(c)(1)(A) uses the permissive term “may” when it 

grants district courts the authority to reduce a term of imprisonment for 

extraordinary and compelling reasons, we review a denial of a motion for 

compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 962 

F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a 

sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(1)(B) based on a retroactive statutory 

change); United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for 

abuse of discretion the denial of a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2)

based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines); Antonin Scalia & 

Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 11, at 112 (2012) 

(explaining that “may” is “permissive” and grants discretion). “A district court 

abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper 

USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 2 of 4
3

procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly 

erroneous.” United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015) 

(quotation marks omitted). 

A district court must find that a sentence reduction for extraordinary and 

compelling reasons is consistent with policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines lists medical conditions, including a terminal illness or any serious or 

physical 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 [] is not expected to recover,” as examples of extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1). 

The movant bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief under section 3582. 

See United States v. Green, 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Mantack pleaded guilty to 

conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and had served less than five 

months of his 30-month sentence of imprisonment when the district court denied 

his motion. When he moved for relief, Mantack was 28 years old. None of his 

medical records described a weakness in his immune system, and Mantack failed 

to present any medical evidence that he was immunocompromised or that he had 

previously suffered heightened infection or other medical problems due to his 

USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4

asplenia. Mantack also made no argument that his asplenia is a serious medical 

condition that diminishes his ability to care for himself while incarcerated. The 

government explained that the Center for Disease Control had not identified 

asplenia as a risk factor for COVID-19. And Mantack misunderstands the burden 

of proof when he argues that the district court erred by failing to research the role 

of the spleen in the immune system. The district court committed no error when it 

ruled that Mantack had failed to prove an extraordinary and compelling reason for

compassionate release.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 4 of 4