[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12652

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORATIN PERTIL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cr-20791-KMM-8

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12652 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12652

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Oratin Pertil appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 

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

He argues that the district court erred in finding that he failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. He argues that he attached to 

his motion an unsigned document to the warden requesting compassionate release that received no response after 30 days. In response, the Government asserted, without filing any supporting 

documentation, that it had “reached out to the [Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”)] to inquire whether Pertil submitted an administrative request for compassionate release and was informed that Pertil had 

not yet done so.” The Government stated that it had “reached out 

to the BOP multiple times regarding Pertil’s administrative exhaustion efforts” and that, “[o]n all occasions, . . . the BOP informed the 

[Government] that Pertil [had] not submitted a request for compassionate release.” 

District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term 

of imprisonment but may do so within § 3582(c)’s provisions. 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 

(11th Cir. 2020). Section 3582(c) 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 

USCA11 Case: 21-12652 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-12652 Opinion of the Court 3

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 [18 U.S.C. §] 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). Thus, a defendant can file a motion for 

compassionate release in a district court only after he has exhausted 

his administrative remedies and the BOP has refused to bring the 

motion or if the BOP fails to answer the defendant’s request within 

30 days. Id. 

The district court, after reviewing Pertil’s motion, determined that his attached documentation provided “no indication 

that [his request for compassionate release] was submitted to the 

BOP.” It noted that Pertil’s submitted document “contain[ed] no 

signature by any BOP staff member in the ‘signature staff member’

section” and that it did not “contain any remarks by a BOP staff 

member in the ‘disposition’ section.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the document did “not show that [Pertil’s] request ever 

reached the warden.” The court then determined that Pertil had 

failed to provide evidence that he had complied with 

USCA11 Case: 21-12652 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12652

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement, so it denied his compassionate release motion while preserving Pertil’s ability to refile and 

show “that his claim is properly exhausted.” 

We review de novo “determinations about a defendant’s eligibility for a Section 3582(c) sentence reduction.” United States v. 

Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). Here, we agree with 

the district court’s determination that Pertil had not exhausted his 

administrative remedies. As noted by the district court, the onepage “Inmate Request to Staff” that Pertil submitted does not indicate that he ever sent this document to the warden or that the warden ever received it. Pertil argues on appeal that the district court

incorrectly relied upon the fact that his documentation “did not 

bear any signature by prison staff” because “[t]he district court was 

certainly aware” that the BOP “routinely . . . provides responses to 

compassionate release requests and Inmate Request to Staff Members in the form of a separate document—not in the space provided 

for such a response on the form submitted.” But even if we take 

this assertion as true, Pertil did not provide any evidence—let alone 

a “separate document” from the BOP—showing that the warden 

or the BOP received or considered his request for compassionate 

release. 

Pertil also argues that the district court clearly erred because 

it based its decision “only on an unsupported claim by the Government” that the BOP said that Pertil had not submitted a compassionate release request. That is not so. The district court merely 

noted that “[t]he Government asserts that the request that is 

USCA11 Case: 21-12652 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-12652 Opinion of the Court 5

attached to [Pertil’s] Motion was not filed in the BOP’s system and, 

therefore, the Warden has not had a chance to review it.” The 

court then, as mentioned above, based its decision on the fact that 

Pertil provided no evidence that the warden or BOP ever received 

or considered his compassionate release request. Because the district court did not rely on the Government’s unsupported factual 

allegation that the BOP never received Pertil’s request for compassionate release, we reject Pertil’s argument that the district court 

did.1 

1 We further note that the relevant federal regulation states that an inmate’s 

request for compassionate release to the warden must contain the following 

information:

(1) The extraordinary or compelling circumstances that 

the inmate believes warrant consideration.

(2) Proposed release plans, including where the inmate 

will reside, how the inmate will support himself/herself, and, if the basis for the request involves the inmate’s health, information on where the inmate will 

receive medical treatment, and how the inmate will 

pay for such treatment. 

28 C.F.R. § 571.61(a). Here, Pertil’s alleged request for compassionate release 

did not include a proposed release plan; it merely states that, due to his medical 

conditions, he is at risk of serious illness from COVID-19 and that he would 

not pose a danger to the community were he to be released. Pertil’s failure to 

comply with the relevant regulation for compassionate release requests provides further support for our conclusion that the district court did not err by 

concluding that Pertil failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12652 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-12652

Because we conclude that the district court did not err by 

denying Pertil’s motion for compassionate release based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, we need not reach the 

Government’s alternative arguments regarding the merits of Pertil’s motion. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Pertil’s compassionate release motion is 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12652 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 6 of 6