Court Opinion

ID: 9393723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 21:02:12.660848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:54.867117
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13890    Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 05/10/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13890
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ROBERT LEESEAN WILLIAMS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cr-00010-RH-MJF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13890      Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 05/10/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13890

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Robert Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release un-
       der 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court did
       not sufficiently address the arguments in his second motion to al-
       low for meaningful appellate review, when the court’s explanation
       for the denial was that the same reasoning for which it had denied
       his first motion for compassionate release remained applicable. Be-
       cause the district court failed to provide sufficient explanation for
       its decision to allow for meaningful appellate review, we vacate
       and remand for further proceedings.
                                      I.
              In 2014, Williams pleaded guilty to distribution and at-
       tempted distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
       § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1); receipt and attempted receipt of child pornog-
       raphy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1); and possession
       of child pornography that involved a prepubescent minor and a mi-
       nor under 12 years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B),
       (b)(2). The district court sentenced Williams to two concurrent
       sentences of 235-months imprisonment.
             In July 2020, Williams moved for compassionate release. In
       his motion, Williams discussed that his health condition, a heart
       murmur, put him at greater risks for complications from COVID-
       19 and that he posed a minimal risk to public safety because of his
USCA11 Case: 22-13890     Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 05/10/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-13890              Opinion of the Court                        3

       programming and disciplinary record in the prison. The govern-
       ment opposed, specifically focusing on Williams’ lack of medical
       records to support his arguments and Williams’ underlying crime.
       In September 2020, the district court denied Williams’ motion,
       finding that even if Williams’ heart murmur warranted an extraor-
       dinary and compelling reason, the court would deny the request
       anyway as a matter of discretion. Specifically, the district court
       found that Williams remained a danger to the safety of others and
       that a reduction of his sentence would not serve the 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) sentencing purposes. Williams appealed, but the appeal
       was dismissed for want of prosecution.
              In October 2022, Williams moved a second time for compas-
       sionate release. In his motion, Williams detailed additional under-
       lying health conditions that warrant a reduction in his sentence.
       Williams also detailed his rehabilitation while in prison including
       completing recidivism reduction programs, working with other in-
       mates to help them obtain their GED, teaching financial literacy,
       and performing community service. Before the government could
       respond, the district court denied Williams’ motion. The district
       court’s order noted that Williams moved for compassionate release
       and that the district court denied a prior motion for compassionate
       release as seen in the September 2020 order. The district court then
       stated, “The same reasoning remains applicable today.” Williams
       timely appealed.
USCA11 Case: 22-13890           Document: 16-1         Date Filed: 05/10/2023   Page: 4 of 6

       4                            Opinion of the Court                  22-13890

                                             II.
               We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for an 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c) reduction. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243,
       1251 (11th Cir. 2021). We review a district court’s denial of a pris-
       oner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an abuse of discretion. United
       States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).
              A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de-
       fendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a stat-
       ute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th Cir.
       2015). The First Step Act of 2018 1 amended 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow prisoners to file motions for compassionate
       release on their own behalf. See First Step Act § 603. Under the
       statute, a district court may reduce the term of imprisonment upon
       motion by a prisoner after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) if it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons war-
       rant such a reduction, or the prisoner meets certain age and prison
       time requirements and that a reduction is consistent with the pol-
       icy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
              “The ‘applicable policy statement[ ]’ to which § 3582(c)(1)(A)
       refers states, in turn, that, the court may reduce a term of impris-
       onment if, as relevant here, it ‘determines that . . . the defendant is
       not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the commu-
       nity.”’ United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021)

       1   First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194.
USCA11 Case: 22-13890      Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 05/10/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-13890               Opinion of the Court                         5

       (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13). Thus, under § 3582(c)(1)(A), “a district
       court may reduce a term of imprisonment if (1) the § 3553(a) sen-
       tencing factors favor doing so, (2) there are ‘extraordinary and com-
       pelling reasons’ for doing so, and, as relevant here, (3) doing so
       wouldn’t endanger any person.” Id. If the district court finds
       against the movant on any one of these requirements, it cannot
       grant relief, and need not analyze the other requirements. United
       States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 2021).
              The district court “must explain its sentencing decisions ad-
       equately enough to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Id. at
       1345 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th Cir.
       2017) (quotation marks omitted). If we cannot discern the basis for
       the district court’s decision from its order, we will vacate the deci-
       sion and “send the case back to the district court for a more com-
       plete explanation.” United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1317
       (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted).
              Here, the district court found that the reasoning from its
       September 2020 order remained applicable to Williams’s October
       motion. But this provides us with little to review. Although we
       note that the September 2020 order provided its reasons, Williams’
       second motion for compassionate release included additional infor-
       mation that was not before the district court when it decided the
       September 2020 order—Williams’ other medical ailments and his
       courses, leadership, and work in prison that could support rehabil-
       itation. The October 2022 order did not acknowledge that
USCA11 Case: 22-13890         Document: 16-1        Date Filed: 05/10/2023         Page: 6 of 6

       6                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13890

       Williams provided more information. 2 Even if that information
       ultimately did not affect the district court’s decision, we cannot
       make that determination based on what we have to review. 3 Be-
       cause the October 2022 order does not provide sufficient explana-
       tion of its reasoning to allow appellate review, we must vacate and
       remand. Stevens, 997 F.3d at 1317.
              VACATED AND REMANDED.

       2 The district court’s order explained in full: “The order of September 15, 2020
       denied a prior motion for sentence reduction on this basis. The same reasoning
       remains applicable today.” (emphasis added).
       3  Of note, this court has issued several cases—Bryant, Tinker, and Giron, to
       name a few—concerning how district courts should approach and resolve mo-
       tions for compassionate release in between the September 2020 and October
       2022 orders. With the district court’s short October 2022 order, we have no
       ability to determine whether the district court correctly applied these inter-
       vening cases which were not available to the district court when it decided
       Williams’ first motion for compassionate release.