[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14270

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUNIOR SYLVIN, 

a.k.a. Rah Rah, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20264-JLK-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 1 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14270

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Junior Sylvin, a federal prisoner serving a 

211-month sentence for firearm and drug offenses, appeals the 

district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by § 603(b) of 

the First Step Act of 2018.1 On appeal, Sylvin argues that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant his release, specifically the 

COVID-19 health crisis. He also contends that the district court

failed to consider his mitigating arguments and erred by considering only the seriousness of his underlying offense and his leadership role enhancement to the exclusion of the remaining 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in denying his motion. After reading the 

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

Act”).

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 2 of 12
20-14270 Opinion of the Court 3

parties’ briefs and reviewing the record, we affirm the district 

court’s order denying Sylvin’s motion for compassionate release. 

I. 

We review a district court’s order denying a prisoner’s 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district 

court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, 

follows improper procedures in making the determination, or 

makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. (quotation 

marks omitted). A district court also abuses its discretion when it 

fails to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors when Congress 

has expressly required it. United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 

1183-84 (11th Cir. 2021). 

II.

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 3 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 20-14270

District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term 

of imprisonment but may do so to the extent permitted under 

§ 3582(c)’s provisions. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Jones, 

962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020). As amended by § 603(b) of 

the First Step Act, that section now provides, in relevant part, 

that: 

the court, upon motion of the Director of the 

[BOP], or upon motion of the defendant after the 

defendant has fully exhausted all administrative 

rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a 

motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 

days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier, 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 . . . 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). In other words, the district court 

may deny relief due to the fact the defendant is not statutorily eliUSCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 4 of 12
20-14270 Opinion of the Court 5

gible because no extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, or 

because relief would be inappropriate under the Section 3553(a) 

factors, or (as the district court did in this case) for both reasons.

The policy statement applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) is found 

in § 1B1.13. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. 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 to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), and that the reduction 

is consistent with the policy statement. Id. § 1B1.13(2), (3).

As relevant here, the commentary lists a defendant’s medical condition as possible “extraordinary and compelling reasons” 

warranting a sentence reduction. Id. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1). A 

defendant’s medical condition may warrant a sentence reduction 

if he (1) has a terminal disease, or (2) is suffering from a physical 

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 5 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 20-14270

or mental condition that diminishes his ability to provide self-care 

in prison and from which he is not expected to recover. Id., 

comment. (n.1(A)). Deteriorating mental or physical health resulting from the aging process also may constitute an extraordinary or compelling reason for granting a sentence reduction. Id. 

A prisoner’s rehabilitation is not, by itself, an extraordinary and 

compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. Id., comment. (n.3). In a recent opinion, we concluded that the policy 

statement in § 1B1.13 is applicable to all motions filed under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), including those filed by prisoners, and thus, district courts cannot reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) unless 

it would be consistent with § 1B1.13. United States v. Bryant, 996 

F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir. 2021). 

We have also held that, at least in cases where extraordinary or compelling circumstances exist, an order granting or 

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 6 of 12
20-14270 Opinion of the Court 7

denying compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) must indicate that the district court has considered “all applicable § 3553(a) 

factors.” Cook, 998 F.3d at 1184. Under § 3553(a), a district 

court’s sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing, which are: reflecting the 

seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment, deterring future criminal conduct, protecting 

the public, and providing the defendant with any needed training 

or treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Section 3553(a) also requires 

district courts to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of sentences available, the Sentencing Guidelines, any pertinent policy 

statement, the need to avoid disparate sentences, and the need to 

provide restitution to any victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 7 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 20-14270

The weight given to any of the § 3553(a) factors is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. 

Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). Even so, “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives 

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or

(3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper 

factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 

2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted).

In situations where consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is 

mandatory, district courts do not need to address “each of the 

§ 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evidence.” United States 

v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1354 (11th Cir. 2021). Instead, an 

acknowledgement by the district court that it considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is sufficient. Id. at 

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 8 of 12
20-14270 Opinion of the Court 9

1354-55. A sentence may be affirmed if the record indicates that 

the district court considered some of the factors. See United 

States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming the 

appellant’s sentence because, even though the district court did 

not explicitly state that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, the 

record showed that it considered several of them because it considered several facts and documents that implicated the factors); 

see also United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th 

Cir. 1997) (concluding that, in the context of a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court’s “short” order denying resentencing was 

sufficient because the court stated that it had reviewed the record 

and the parties’ filings, which in turn discussed the § 3553(a) factors, and because the same judge presided over the defendant’s 

original sentencing and resentencing).

III.

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 9 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 20-14270

As an initial matter, Sylvin has abandoned any challenge to 

the district court’s order denying his request for reconsideration 

of the denial of his compassionate release motion because he has 

failed to brief this issue on appeal. Thus, we only address the 

court’s order denying him compassionate release. See United 

States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating that we consider an argument abandoned when a defendant 

offers no argument on the issue on appeal).

Our review of the record convinces us that the district 

court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. Although the district court did not have to address every § 3553(a) factor, it expressly acknowledged the factors and the parties’ filings. See Taylor, 997 F.3d at 1354-55. Further, assigning more weight to the 

seriousness of Sylvin’s offense more than the other factors was 

within the district court’s discretion, and the record reflects that it 

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 10 of 12
20-14270 Opinion of the Court 11

considered several § 3553(a) factors, given its statements and the 

parties’ filings below. Contrary to his contentions, Sylvin’s role 

enhancement is relevant to § 3553(a) because it speaks directly to 

the nature and circumstances of his offense. Additionally, the district court specifically mentioned its dissatisfaction that the safety 

of the public would be adequately protected if Sylvin were to be 

released. Pursuant to the guidelines, a district court should not 

reduce a sentence if a defendant poses a danger to the safety of 

any person or the community. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2). 

As to his claim that the district court erred in not addressing the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”), Sylvin cites no 

authority requiring the court, in addressing a motion for compassionate release, to discuss the PSI specifically. Moreover, the record reflects that the same judge who denied Sylvin’s motion also 

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 11 of 12
12 Opinion of the Court 20-14270

imposed his sentence, which further indicates that the court considered the appropriate factors and was familiar with Sylvin’s case. 

Based on the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 

§ 3553(a) factors and in denying Sylvin’s motion. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order denying Sylvin’s motion for compassionate release.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-14270 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 Page: 12 of 12