Court Opinion

ID: 9406966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 15:01:07.70135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.609248
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13990    Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 07/05/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13990
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       GREGORY RICHARDSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60294-RNS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13990      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 07/05/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13990

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Gregory Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of
       his second motion for compassionate release, 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court failed to provide
       him procedural due process by denying his motion for compassion-
       ate release before he filed his reply to the government’s response.
       We discern no due-process violation, so we affirm.
               The docket reflects that Richardson’s reply was due on Oc-
       tober 11, 2022. Yet he did not sign and deliver his reply to prison
       officials for mailing until October 18, 2022, the same day that the
       district court denied his motion. The district court received his re-
       ply on November 2, 2022, construed the reply as a motion for re-
       consideration, and denied reconsideration.
               The district court was not to blame for Richardson’s failure
       to file a timely reply. And he cites no binding authority establishing
       that due process required the district court to wait beyond the filing
       deadline before denying his motion. Further, Richardson does not
       dispute and has abandoned any challenge that he could have made
       to the findings by the district court that his medical conditions did
       not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons, he failed to
       prove that he would not pose a danger to the public, and he failed
       to establish that the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-13990     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       22-13990               Opinion of the Court                        3

       § 3553(a), weighed in favor of reducing his sentence. Sapuppo v. All-
       state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
              We AFFIRM the denial of Richardson’s motion for compas-
       sionate release.