[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 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 92 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 J ORDAN , J ILL P RYOR , and N EWSOM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Zane Balsam, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s order s denying his motions seeking USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 2 of 921

- 11153 Opinion of the Court 3 compassionate releas e

. The government has moved for summaryaffirmance 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 insuran ce 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 United States v. Balsam, 315 F. App’x 114, 117 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).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

. Bals a m 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) ; andengaging 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 , w e vac a ted his sentences and remanded for a resentencing. See United States v. Arroy a

, 213 F. USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 3 of 94 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11153
App’x 815 , 817 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). On remand, t he distri c t 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 conditio ns

— 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 h e 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 moti ons , he developed a serious infection and was hospitalized for approximately eight days. He r enewed 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 921

- 11153 Opinion of the Court 5

to have been addressed and did not indicate a terminal illness. T hedistrict court again denied Balsam’s request for compassionate relea se

. 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 ofthe 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 nov o whet her 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 defendan t’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 C ircuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 5 of 96 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 re asons 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 illness es. Id. A defendant who suffers from a non

- terminal medical condition is eligible for a sentence reduction only if h is medical condition “su bstantially diminishes” his USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 6 of 921

- 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)

. T he 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 di e d
, or the defendant’s spouse or partner has be come incapacitated and the defendant is the only available caregiver for the spouse or partner

. Id.
T he commentary also authorizes relief for “other reasons

. ” I

d. , cmt. n.1(D) . But we have held that these other reasons must be determined by the Bureau of Priso ns, 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 hi s arguments for relief fall s 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

. B ut 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 98 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

wou ld be a caretaker for a minor child
, a spouse, or a partner . Thecommentary 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 circumstance s are present because he was rehabilitated in prison and his sentence was disproportionately long. In raising th e s e argument s , he says that the district court was not limited by § 1B1.13 because this policy statement i s 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, w e 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 dis trict 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 re nders him unable to care for himself in prison. USCA11 Case: 21-11153 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 8 of 921

- 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 12 62. Under our prior panel rule, we remain bound by Bryant

. See United States v. Archer
, 5 31 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 20 08 ) (“[A] prior panel ’ s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abro gation 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