[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12868

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60245-WPD-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RAFAEL FERNANDEZ GARCIA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 19, 2021)

Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

Rafael Garcia, acting pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

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

Garcia contends his medical conditions of a pulmonary embolism in 2000, 

“multiple” heart attacks over “the next few years,” kidney stones in 2003, 

hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, and high cholesterol “put him at a 

tremendous risk” of contracting coronavirus, which he asserts “will enter” his 

prison and “cannot be stopped.” He argues coronavirus “would be fatal” to him, so 

his increased risk of contracting it is an extraordinary and compelling reason

warranting compassionate release. He also argues the district court failed to 

analyze his listed extraordinary circumstances “thoroughly” and failed to address

his argument regarding sentencing disparities. 

“We review de novo . . . determinations about a defendant’s eligibility for a 

Section 3582(c) sentence reduction,” and “we review for abuse of discretion a 

district court’s grant or denial of an eligible defendant’s reduction request.” United 

States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). A defendant isn’t eligible 

for a § 3582(c)(1)(A) sentence reduction unless “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warrant” it, § 3582(c)(1)(A), and the first application note to U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.13 defines what reasons qualify as extraordinary and compelling, § 1B1.13 

cmt. n.1. The reasons listed in that application note, which we have held are 

exhaustive, see Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1263–65, include terminal illness and serious, 

USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

permanent physical or medical conditions that substantially diminish a defendant’s 

ability to care for himself, § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). The application note also 

contains a catchall category for any “other reasons” the BOP director determines 

are extraordinary and compelling. Id. at cmt. n.1(D). “[D]istrict courts may not 

reduce a sentence under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction would be 

consistent with [§] 1B1.13.” Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262. 

When Garcia moved the BOP for compassionate release in March 2020, he 

used a form that included a checklist of empty boxes next to reasons corresponding 

with the ones listed in § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. Garcia checked the box next to “other:-

Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstance,” the entry intended to correspond to 

the application note’s catchall category. And Garcia’s accompanying written 

explanation gave his history of pulmonary embolism as the only reason in support

of his motion. As a result, the government contends Garcia failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies on any ground other than that one. But we will assume 

Garcia comprehensively exhausted his administrative remedies because it doesn’t 

matter given that the court didn’t err in ruling that he had not shown extraordinary 

and compelling reasons to warrant compassionate release.

First, Garcia made clear on his motion form that he was applying for 

compassionate release under the catchall provision of § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, which is 

subpart (D). But that provision specifically requires the director of the BOP — not 

USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

the district court — to determine “what reasons not expressly listed in [§] 1B1.13 

can be extraordinary and compelling.” Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1263; see also

§ 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). And despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the director of the 

BOP has not determined that medical conditions that increase an inmate’s risk of

contracting coronavirus are extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

compassionate release.

1

 See BOP Program Statement 5050.50, Compassionate 

Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

3582 and 4205(g), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_050_EN.pdf. 

Second, to the extent Garcia intended to apply for compassionate release 

under the medical conditions provision of § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, which is subpart (A), 

that provision is limited to conditions that are terminal or have permanently 

debilitated a defendant. See § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). Garcia hasn’t argued any of his 

ailments are terminal or have made him unable to care for himself, so they 

wouldn’t make him eligible for compassionate release under subpart (A) even if he 

had checked that box on the BOP form.

Finally, in denying the motion the district court explicitly considered both 

the ailments Garcia argued were extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant 

1 Nor has the BOP director determined that sentencing disparities are extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for compassionate release. See BOP Program Statement 5050.50. That 

makes sense because § 3582(c)(1) does not authorize direct challenges to a defendant’s sentence

on such grounds; those should be raised on direct appeal or in collateral proceedings under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255.

USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

compassionate release and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. This not 

only refutes Garcia’s assertion that the court failed to adequately analyze his 

motion, it also supports our conclusion that the court did not abuse its discretion. 

See United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (“The district court 

additionally considered the § 3553(a) factors and § 1B1.13 n.1, which further 

contributes to our holding that it did not abuse its discretion.”); see also United 

States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (noting that courts evaluating 

motions for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) must “consider all 

applicable § 3553(a) factors”).

 Because Garcia’s “motion does not fall within any of the reasons that [§] 

1B1.13 identifies as ‘extraordinary and compelling,’ the district court correctly 

denied his motion for a reduction of his sentence.” Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1265; see 

also Harris, 989 F.3d at 912 (affirming the conclusion that hypertension and other 

medical conditions were not “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to grant a 

prisoner compassionate release). 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 5 of 5