[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10587

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEETAVIOUS M. GAINES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:96-cr-06159-KMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10587 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10587

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Leetavious M. Gaines, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals 

the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release pursuant to § 603 of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 

115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”). The 

government has moved for summary affirmance, and Gaines has 

responded by conceding that the merits of his appeal are squarely 

foreclosed by binding precedent. We agree and affirm.1

A jury found Gaines guilty of one count of conspiracy to 

commit Hobbs Act robbery, six counts of Hobbs Act robbery, six 

counts of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and one count 

of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. 

The district court sentenced him to a total sentence of 1330 

months’ imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentence. 

See United States v. Liddell, 192 F.3d 130 (11th Cir. 1999).

In 2020, Gaines filed the present, counseled motion for compassionate release. He did so before we decided United States v. 

Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 

(2021). Gaines argued that the United States Sentencing Guidelines

§ 1B1.13 policy statement, which lists extraordinary circumstances 

1 We DENY the government’s alternative request to stay the briefing schedule 

as moot.

USCA11 Case: 22-10587 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 2 of 4
22-10587 Opinion of the Court 3

warranting compassionate release, did not apply to prisoner motions, so the district court could consider his “stacked” sentences as 

an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting release. He 

also argued that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of 

release. The district court denied the motion for compassionate release, concluding that Gaines’s arguments regarding stacked sentences failed under this Court’s recent decision in Bryant. The district court also found that the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in 

favor of release.

Gaines appealed. The government has moved for summary 

affirmance, arguing that Bryant forecloses Gaines’s stacked-sentences argument. The government further asserts that the district 

court properly weighed the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. In response, Gaines concedes that Bryant forecloses his stacked-sentences argument and therefore forecloses the merits of his appeal, 

rendering a decision on the district court’s weighing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors unnecessary. We agree.

Summary disposition is appropriate, as relevant here, 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 Under our prior panel precedent rule, a prior 

2

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), 

we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to October 1, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 22-10587 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10587

panel’s holding is binding unless it has been overruled or abrogated 

by the Supreme Court or by us sitting en banc. United States v. 

Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 1998). 

In Bryant, this Court concluded that a district court may not 

reduce a sentence unless a reduction would be consistent with 

United States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.13’s definition of extraordinary and compelling reasons. Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1252–62. 

The Bryant panel further concluded that the catch-all provision in 

the commentary to § 1B1.13 did not grant district courts the discretion to develop other reasons outside those listed in § 1B1.13 that 

might justify a reduction in a defendant’s sentence. Id. at 1248, 

1263, 1265. 

Bryant binds this panel. See Steele, 147 F.3d at 1317–18. And, 

as Gaines concedes, that a defendant received stacked sentences is 

not a reason listed in § 1B1.13. Thus, under Bryant, Gaines cannot 

show extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying his release,

and so he cannot prevail in his appeal as a matter of law. See United 

States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). We therefore GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance. 

See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10587 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 4 of 4