[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-13795

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00332-VMC-EAJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

AHMAD MCCASLIN, 

a.k.a. Sean, 

a.k.a. Buddy, 

a.k.a. Squirrel, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 12, 2021)

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 1 of 4
2

Ahmad McCaslin, acting pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

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

McCaslin moved for compassionate release in August 2020. His pro se 

motion was on a form that included a checklist of empty boxes next to potentially 

applicable “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” which corresponded with the 

reasons listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 n.1. McCaslin checked none of those boxes. 

Instead, he argued that he should receive compassionate release because his 

underlying health condition of hypertension exposed him to an increased risk of 

severe illness if he contracted COVID-19. The district court denied his motion 

because it found that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required 

by the statute. 

One day after the court issued that order, McCaslin filed what he labeled as a 

“Notice of Administrative Remedy for Compassionate Release.” The filing

included emails that he claimed showed he had requested the prison warden grant 

him compassionate release. The district court construed the filing as a motion for 

reconsideration and ruled that the emails still did not show exhaustion because they 

did not show a request for compassionate release. The court also ruled in the 

alternative that even if McCaslin had exhausted his administrative remedies, he 

had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release 

under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1.

USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 2 of 4
3

McCaslin’s initial brief contends only that he provided the district court with 

enough information to show that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. 

The government responds that the district court’s order should be affirmed because 

McCaslin has abandoned any challenge to the court’s alternative ruling on the 

merits, but that in any event the alternative ruling was correct.

We review only for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of 

McCaslin’s motion for reconsideration. United States v. Llewlyn, 879 F.3d 1291, 

1294 (11th Cir. 2018). But we review de novo “determinations about a 

defendant’s eligibility for a § 3582(c) sentence reduction.” United States v. 

Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021).

We will assume that McCaslin exhausted his administrative remedies and 

did not abandon his challenge to the district court’s alternative ruling, because it 

doesn’t matter; the court did not err in ruling that he was ineligible for 

compassionate release. The court reasoned that McCaslin had not shown 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release because he had 

not alleged or shown that his circumstances fall within any of the circumstances 

listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. That was correct. We have held that 

§ 1B1.13’s first application note lists the exhaustive set of “extraordinary and 

compelling” circumstances allowing for compassionate release. See Bryant, 996 

F.3d at 1263. “Because [McCaslin’s] motion does not fall within any of the 

USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4

reasons that [§] 1B1.13 identifies as ‘extraordinary and compelling,’ the district 

court correctly denied his motion for a reduction of his sentence.” Id. at 1265; see 

also United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming the 

district court's conclusion that the prisoner’s hypertension and other medical 

conditions were not an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for granting 

compassionate release).

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 4 of 4