[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 20

- 13948
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MARIA HAYDEE LUZULA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:14

- cr

- 20221

- PAS

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-13948 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 20

- 13948

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Maria Luzula , a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of her motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Luzula argues t hat the district court erred by bas ing its decision on the policy statements in Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines and by determining that s he failed to identify extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release

. We affirm.
Luzula ’s challenge to the use of the policy statements i n section 1B1.13 to determine h er eligibility for compassionate release is foreclosed by precedent. In U nited States v. Bryant
, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) , we held that the policy statement in section 1B1.13 governs a motion for compassionate release, whether it is filed bythe Bureau of Prisons or by a prisoner, and that a district court cannot “develop ‘other reasons’ that might justify a reduction in a defendant’s sentence.” Id. at 1247

– 48 . So Luzula had to establish that h er situation was “compellin g and extraordinary” to obtain a sentence reduction. Id. at 1262 (“[D]istrict courts may not reduce a sentence under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction would be consistent with 1B1.13.”). Luzula challenges the validity of Section 1B1.13 , but we decline to consider arguments that Luzula never presented to the district court, see Access Now, Inc. v. S.W. Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) , and raises for the USCA11 Case: 20-13948 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 2 of 320

- 13948 Opinion of the Court 3 first time in her reply brief, see United States v. Castillo , 899 F.3d 1208, 1215 (11th Cir. 2018). We cannot say that t he district court abuse d its discretion by den ying Luzul a’s motion for compassionate release. Luzula argued that she risked contracting COVID

- 19 in prison based on her body mass index of 30, her chroni c asthma, and “immune

- compromised conditions” caused by her asthma medication

. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). The district court found that Luzula’s latter

two conditions , for which she submitted no medical records and did “not claim” were acute, “ migh t [put her] at increased risk ” and did not qualify as extraordinary and compelling enough to warrant early release. See United States v. Harris , 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021). And the district court found that Luzula’s body mass index did not warrant compassionate relief because her prison had imposed restrictions , including “operating under ‘lockdown’ conditions,” to stem the spread of the virus. Luzula failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason to justify early release

. We AFFIRM the denial of Luzula ’s motion for compassionate release. USCA11 Case: 20-13948 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 3 of 3