[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13591

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTY DALE SHELL, 

a.k.a. Christy Schell,

a.k.a. Karen Miller,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-10019-KMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13591

Before WILSON, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Christy Dale Shell, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release. In denying the motion, the district court found that Shell had

failed to show that extraordinary and compelling reasons or the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors supported her release. On appeal, Shell argues that the district court erred because: (1) the government conceded that her medical conditions were extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction; (2) the court improperly

weighed the Section 3553(a) factors without supporting evidence;

and (3) the Federal Bureau of Prisons did not adequately treat her 

conditions to the point of cruel and unusual punishment. The government responds by moving for summary affirmance of the district court’s order and to stay the briefing schedule in the alternative. After careful consideration, we conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate and grant the government’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND 

In 2017, Shell pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy 

to possess fentanyl and other controlled substances with intent to 

distribute. The district court sentenced her to 235 months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release.

In September 2020, Shell filed a motion for compassionate 

release, arguing that a series of medical conditions increased her 

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 2 of 7
21-13591 Opinion of the Court 3

risk of death or severe illness from COVID-19. The motion also 

contended that the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ COVID-19 policies 

amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The government 

agreed that Shell’s conditions established “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. It nonetheless

opposed Shell’s motion, arguing that she had failed to show that 

she was not a danger to the community or otherwise merited compassionate release under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Shell filed 

two addendums claiming that she suffered from new medical problems and that her existing problems had worsened, but she did not 

provide any new medical records to support her claims. Shell also 

received the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in August 

2021. 

On September 27, 2021, the district court denied Shell’s motion. The court acknowledged the government’s initial concession 

but explained that Shell had since received a dose of the COVID-19 

vaccine, which it found to have substantially diminished her risk

from COVID-19. This new fact, the court found, rendered Shell’s 

conditions less than “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for 

compassionate release. The court also found that the Section 

3553(a) factors weighed strongly against granting Shell’s motion,

citing: (1) her “substantial criminal history”; (2) the seriousness of 

her instant conviction; (3) the need to deter criminal conduct; and 

(4) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. As to 

Shell’s addenda, the court explained that she had neither provided 

additional medical evidence to support her new contentions nor 

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13591

demonstrated that she had exhausted her administrative remedies.

Shell timely appealed. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s motion for 

modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 

2021).

III. DISCUSSION 

We begin with a note on Shell’s pro se status. Although pro 

se filings are liberally construed, all litigants must comply with the 

applicable procedural rules, and we will not serve as de facto counsel for a party or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain 

an action. See United States v. Padgett, 917 F.3d 1312, 1316 n.3, 

1317 (11th Cir. 2019). 

Turning to the merits of Shell’s claim, “[a] district court 

abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in an incorrect or unreasonable fashion, fails to follow 

proper procedures in making a determination,” or makes “clearly 

erroneous” factual findings. United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 

1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). In the 

context of compassionate release, after a prisoner exhausts her administrative remedies a district court “may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set forth in [S]ection 

3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable if it finds that—

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 4 of 7
21-13591 Opinion of the Court 5

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Based on this language, we have held 

that a court “may reduce a term of imprisonment if (1) the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors favor doing so, (2) there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for doing so, and . . . (3) doing so 

would not endanger any person or the community within the 

meaning of § 1B1.13’s policy statement.” United States v. Tinker, 

14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). The court may consider the

three elements in any order, and the absence of any one of them 

forecloses a sentence reduction. See id. at 1237–38. 

We start and end with the “extraordinary and compelling” 

element. It is the prisoner’s burden to show that her circumstances 

warrant a reduction under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and we are not 

bound to accept the government’s concessions. See United States 

v. Lee, 586 F.3d 859, 866 (11th Cir. 2009). The United States Sentencing Commission’s policy statement explains that a prisoner’s

medical condition can be an extraordinary and compelling reason 

to the extent that it reflects a terminal illness or a serious condition 

substantially diminishing her ability to provide self-care within the 

environment of a correctional facility and from which she is not 

expected to recover. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C). We have 

held that the policy statement does not “grant discretion to courts 

to develop other reasons that might justify a reduction in a defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th 

Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). We have also held 

that a district court does not abuse its discretion by denying 

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13591

compassionate release to an inmate with medical conditions that 

may increase the risk of death or severe medical complications due 

to COVID-19 where the inmate’s conditions are manageable in 

prison. See United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 

2021) (no abuse of discretion where the district court, after adopting the government’s response in full, found no extraordinary and 

compelling reason for release because the inmate’s high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and coronary artery disease “were manageable in prison, despite the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic”). 

These precedents foreclose Shell’s claim because the district 

court found that her medical conditions were being adequately 

managed in prison, especially in the light of her vaccination. See id.

Specifically, Shell conceded that the Bureau had provided her medication to treat her melanoma, hormone imbalance, neurological 

disorders, and asthma, which is consistent with the district court’s 

finding that those conditions did not substantially diminish her ability to provide self-care. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C). Shell’s

claim that the Bureau mistreats inmates does not convert concededly managed medical conditions into “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release. A compassionate release motion is an improper vehicle for raising constitutional claims. Cf. Hutcherson v. 

Riley, 468 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 2006) (“An inmate convicted and 

sentenced under state law may seek federal relief under two primary avenues: a petition for habeas corpus and a complaint under 

the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 6 of 7
21-13591 Opinion of the Court 7

(cleaned up)). Finally, we agree with the district court that, having 

failed to provide additional medical documentation or show the 

exhaustion of her administrative remedies, we cannot consider the 

allegations of new conditions in Shell’s addenda. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Summary disposition is appropriate 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, or where, 

as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). As we 

have explained above, this appeal presents just such a circumstance. Thus, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED and its motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED

as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13591 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 7 of 7