[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11153

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ZANE BALSAM, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:99-cr-08125-DMM-16

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11153

____________________

No. 21-13622

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ZANE BALSAM, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:99-cr-08125-DMM-16

____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Zane Balsam, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals 

the district court’s orders denying his motions seeking 

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 2 of 9
21-11153 Opinion of the Court 3

compassionate release. The government has moved for summary 

affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. We grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance.

I. 

Balsam co-founded a company that he claimed was a viatical 

investment company, meaning it would buy life insurance policies 

at a discounted rate from terminally ill policy holders. In reality, 

“the company was simply a vehicle to steal its investors’ money.” 

United States v. Balsam, 315 F. App’x 114, 117 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). 

Balsam and others were charged with federal crimes arising 

from the scheme. Balsam was charged with money laundering 

with the intent to conceal the nature, source, or ownership of the 

proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B); conspiring to 

commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); and 

engaging in a financial transaction with criminally derived proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. After a jury found Balsam 

guilty of all the offenses, the district court imposed a total sentence 

of 360 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $50 million 

in restitution. After Balsam appealed, we vacated his sentences and 

remanded for a resentencing. See United States v. Arroya, 213 F. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11153

App’x 815, 817 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). On remand, the district court imposed the same sentence.1

Beginning in 2020, Balsam filed motions in the district court 

seeking reductions to his sentence.2 He claimed that extraordinary 

and compelling reasons justified a sentence reduction because his 

health conditions—which include high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, and a problem with his prostate—put him at increased 

risk of contracting COVID-19 while in prison. He also argued that 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances were present because 

he needed to care for his elderly mother whose health was declining, his sentence was disproportionately long, and he had been rehabilitated while in prison. The district court denied the motions, 

concluding that Balsam failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. 

After the district court entered several orders denying Balsam’s motions, he developed a serious infection and was hospitalized for approximately eight days. He renewed his request for compassionate release, arguing that the hospitalization showed that exceptional circumstances warranted a sentence reduction. The government responded that Balsam still had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances because his recent health problems appeared 

1 Balsam appealed a second time, and we affirmed his sentence. See Balsam, 

315 F. App’x at 123.

2 At times in the district court, Balsam was represented by counsel, but he is 

proceeding pro se on appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 4 of 9
21-11153 Opinion of the Court 5

to have been addressed and did not indicate a terminal illness. The 

district court again denied Balsam’s request for compassionate release. 

Balsam brought two appeals from the district court’s orders,

which we have consolidated. After Balsam filed his appellant’s 

brief, the government filed a motion for summary affirmance. 

II. 

Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of 

the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” 

or 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).3

We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. 

Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). After eligibility is established, we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial 

of a defendant’s request for a sentence reduction. Id. We liberally 

3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), 

we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to October 1, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 21-11153

construe pro se filings. Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 

1107 (11th Cir. 2015). 

III. 

A district court may grant a motion for a sentence reduction, 

if, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, it finds that “extraordinary 

and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and that “a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements” in the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The applicable policy 

statement is found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Under our binding precedent, a district court cannot reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) unless the reduction would be consistent with 

§ 1B1.13. Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262.

The commentary to § 1B1.13 lists certain medical, age, and 

family reasons as circumstances that qualify as sufficiently “extraordinary and compelling.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1(A)–(C). The 

commentary provides that in certain circumstances a defendant’s 

medical condition may be grounds for a sentence reduction. Id., 

cmt. n.1(A). A defendant who suffers from a “terminal illness,” 

meaning “a serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory,” is eligible for a sentence reduction. Id., cmt. n.1(A)(i). The 

commentary lists “metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia” as examples of terminal illnesses. Id. A defendant who suffers 

from a non-terminal medical condition is eligible for a sentence reduction only if his medical condition “substantially diminishes” his 

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 6 of 9
21-11153 Opinion of the Court 7

ability “to provide self-care” and he is not expected to recover from 

the condition. Id., cmt. n.1(A)(ii). 

The commentary further states that a defendant may be eligible for a sentence reduction based on family circumstances if he 

is required to care for certain family members. Id. cmt. n1.(C). A 

defendant is eligible only when the caretaker of the defendant’s minor child or children has become incapacitated or died, or the defendant’s spouse or partner has become incapacitated and the defendant is the only available caregiver for the spouse or partner. Id.

The commentary also authorizes relief for “other reasons.” 

Id., cmt. n.1(D). But we have held that these other reasons must be 

determined by the Bureau of Prisons, not the courts. See Bryant, 

996 F.3d at 1262–65. We recognized in Bryant that a district court 

lacks discretion to develop other reasons outside those listed in 

§ 1B1.13. Id.

Here, the district court did not err in denying Balsam’s motions. None of his arguments for relief falls within any of the reasons that § 1B1.13 identifies as extraordinary and compelling. He 

argues that his medical condition and COVID-19 created an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. But on

the record before us, we cannot say that Balsam had either (1) a 

terminal illness or (2) a non-terminal condition from which he was 

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 21-11153

not expected to recover that substantially diminished his ability to 

care for himself. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1(A).4

Balsam also argues that he demonstrated an extraordinary 

and compelling reason because he needs to care for his elderly 

mother who is ill. But a defendant’s caretaker status qualifies as an 

extraordinary and compelling reason only when the defendant

would be a caretaker for a minor child, a spouse, or a partner. The 

commentary does not cover the situation before us in which Balsam seeks to care for a parent. See id. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1(C).

Balsam also asserts that extraordinary and compelling circumstances are present because he was rehabilitated in prison and

his sentence was disproportionately long. In raising these arguments, he says that the district court was not limited by § 1B1.13

because this policy statement is not applicable when a defendant 

4 Balsam urges us to consider that he was diagnosed with colon cancer while 

this appeal was pending. But, in deciding this appeal, we are limited to the 

record from the district court, meaning we cannot consider this subsequent 

development. See Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1177 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(explaining that “an appellate court may consider only evidence that was part 

of the record before the district court” (internal quotation marks omitted)); S 

& Davis Int’l, Inc. v. Republic of Yemen, 218 F.3d 1292, 1299 n.5 (11th Cir. 

2000) (refusing to consider new evidence that “was not part of the district 

court’s record”).

Our decision does not bar Balsam from seeking compassionate release in the 

district court or before the Bureau of Prisons based on his cancer diagnosis. 

We express no opinion about whether this diagnosis means that he is suffering 

from a terminal illness or a non-terminal illness that renders him unable to 

care for himself in prison.

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 8 of 9
21-11153 Opinion of the Court 9

files a compassionate release motion. But we previously rejected 

this argument in Bryant, holding that a district court may reduce a 

sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) only when a reduction would be 

consistent with § 1B1.13. See 996 F.3d at 1262. Under our prior 

panel rule, we remain bound by Bryant. See United States v. 

Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme 

Court or by this court sitting en banc.”).

Because there is no substantial question as to the outcome 

of this appeal, we conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, the 

government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and 

its motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 9 of 9