[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14360

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MALCOM ANWAR WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cr-60120-KAM-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14360

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate 

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that, after the 

enactment of the First Step Act, district courts are not bound by the 

definition of extraordinary and compelling reasons in U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13 and independently may determine whether there are 

extraordinary and compelling reasons other than those listed. He 

maintains that such reasons are present in his case, citing a change 

in the law and the resentencing of his codefendants. After review, 

we affirm.

I. Background

Williams pleaded guilty in 2015 to Hobbs Act robbery 

pursuant to a written plea agreement, which contained a sentenceappeal waiver. At sentencing, Williams was deemed a career 

offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a) on the basis that the Hobbs Act 

robbery conviction qualified as a “crime of violence,” and Williams 

had two prior state offenses that qualified as either a crime of 

violence or a controlled substance offense.1 Williams did not 

1 At the time of Williams’s sentencing, the Sentencing Guidelines provided 

that a defendant was a career offender if (1) he was at least 18 years’ old when 

he committed the instant offense, (2) the instant offense was “either a crime 

of violence or a controlled substance offense,” and (3) the defendant had two 

prior felony convictions for “either a crime of violence or a controlled 

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 2 of 7
20-14360 Opinion of the Court 3

object to his career-offender designation. The district court 

imposed a sentence of 151 months’ imprisonment. Williams did 

not appeal. Two of his codefendants did, however, and 

successfully challenged their respective career-offender 

enhancements on the basis that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime 

of violence under the Guidelines. See United States v. Eason, 953 

F.3d 1184, 1187 (11th Cir. 2020).

In 2020, Williams filed a pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion 

seeking a sentence reduction based on “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons,” namely, that (1) Hobbs Act robbery is no 

longer considered a “crime of violence” due to an amendment to 

the crime of violence definition in the Guidelines; (2) two of his 

codefendants had their career-offender designations based on 

Hobbs Act robbery vacated on appeal; and (3) one of his state 

convictions should not have counted as a predicate offense for 

substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (2014). “Crime of violence” was 

defined as:

any offense . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term 

exceeding one year, that—

(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use 

of physical force against the person of another, or 

(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use 

of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a 

serious potential risk of physical injury to another.

Id. § 4B1.2(a) (2014).

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 20-14360

purposes of the career-offender enhancement. The government 

opposed the motion. 

The district court denied the motion, concluding that it 

lacked authority to reduce Williams’s sentence because a change in 

law did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to 

reduce a sentence. Furthermore, it explained that, even if it had 

the authority to reduce his sentence, consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors weighed against a reduction. Finally, the district 

court noted that releasing him early would be inconsistent with the 

policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 because Williams presented

a danger to the community. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

We review de novo a defendant’s eligibility for an 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) sentence reduction. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 

1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). If a defendant is eligible for relief, we 

review the district court’s decision to grant or deny relief for an 

abuse of discretion. Id.; see also United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 

908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). 

Generally, a court “may not modify a term of imprisonment 

once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Section 

3582(c)(1)(A), however, provides the following limited exception: 

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 . . . may 

reduce the term of imprisonment . . . , after 

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 4 of 7
20-14360 Opinion of the Court 5

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.

Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). “The ‘applicable policy statement[ ]’ to which 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) refers states, in turn, that, the court may reduce a 

term of imprisonment if, as relevant here, it ‘determines that . . .

the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or 

to the community.’” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 

(11th Cir. 2021) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13). Thus, under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), the district court may reduce a movant’s 

imprisonment term if: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” for doing so, (2) the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

favor doing so, and (3) doing so is consistent with the policy 

statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Id. (quotation marks omitted). If 

the district court finds against the movant on any one of these 

requirements, it cannot grant relief, and need not analyze the other 

requirements. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347–48 (11th 

Cir. 2021). 

The Sentencing Commission defines “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A) in Application 

Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. (n.1); see 

also Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1247, 1262–63. Pursuant to this definition, 

there are four circumstances under which “extraordinary and 

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 20-14360

compelling reasons exist”: (A) the defendant suffers from (i) “a 

terminal illness,” or (ii) a permanent health condition “that 

substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide selfcare within the environment of a correctional facility from which 

he or she is not expected to recover”; (B) the defendant is “at least 

65 years old,” “is experiencing a serious [age-related] deterioration 

in physical or mental health,” and “has served at least 10 years or 

75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less”; 

(C) the defendant’s assistance is needed in caring for the 

defendant’s minor child, spouse, or registered partner due to (i) 

“[t]he death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s 

minor child or minor children” or (ii) “[t]he incapacitation of the 

defendant’s spouse or registered partner”; and (D) there exist 

“other” extraordinary and compelling reasons “[a]s determined by 

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. (n.1 

(A)–(D)).

Contrary to Williams’s argument on appeal, we have held 

that “district courts are bound by the Commission’s definition of 

‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ found in 1B1.13.” Bryant, 

996 F.3d at 1262. Furthermore, we have held that although the 

catchall “other” extraordinary and compelling reasons provision 

set forth in Application Note 1(D) gives discretion to the Director 

of the BOP to identify other qualifying reasons, it “does not grant 

discretion to courts to develop ‘other reasons’ that might justify a 

reduction in a defendant’s sentence.” Id. at 1248. Accordingly, 

because the BOP did not determine that other extraordinary and 

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 6 of 7
20-14360 Opinion of the Court 7

compelling reasons existed in Williams’s case, he was eligible for 

relief only if his asserted reasons fell within the reasons identified 

as “extraordinary and compelling” in subsections (A) through (C) 

of Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G § 1B1.13, which they did not.2 See 

Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1264–65. Consequently, the district court did 

not err in denying his motion.3 

AFFIRMED. 

2 Furthermore, notwithstanding our Bryant decision, Application Note 1(D) 

does not create an escape hatch from the normal federal post-conviction relief

proceduresfor collaterally attacking a sentence via a motion to vacate, correct, 

or set aside sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Williams already filed a 

§ 2255 motion and cannot use § 3582(c) to circumvent § 2255’s procedural 

hurdles.

3 We also note that Williams does not challenge the district court’s 

determination that the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction 

or that he posed a danger to the community if released early. Thus, 

notwithstanding our holding concerning the extraordinary and compelling 

reasons factor, the district court’s judgment is also due to be affirmed on these 

alternative grounds. United States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2014) 

(“[W]hen an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds 

on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have 

abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is 

due to be affirmed.”).

USCA11 Case: 20-14360 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 7 of 7