Court Opinion

ID: 9364447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 17:00:32.558488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.275629
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-11872    Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-11872
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       FRANK L. AMODEO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00176-JA-LRH-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-11872     Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-11872

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit
       Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Frank L. Amodeo, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of
       his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Af-
       ter Amodeo’s transfer to home confinement, the district court
       ruled that he failed to establish that extraordinary and compelling
       reasons warranted a reduced sentence, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and that
       the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), weighed
       against granting relief. We affirm and deny the government’s mo-
       tion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
               In 2009, Amodeo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring
       to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of obstruct-
       ing an agency investigation, id. § 1505, and three counts of failing
       to remit payroll taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 702. After a five-day sentencing
       hearing, the district court sentenced Amodeo to 270 months of im-
       prisonment and ordered about $181 million in restitution. We af-
       firmed his convictions. United States v. Amodeo, 387 F. App’x 953
       (11th Cir. 2010). For the last decade, Amodeo repeatedly and un-
       successfully has sought to overturn his sentence. See Amodeo v.
       FCC Coleman - Low Warden, 984 F.3d 992, 994-96 (11th Cir 2021)
       (summarizing Amodeo’s post-conviction filings), cert. denied, 142
       S. Ct. 836 (2022).
USCA11 Case: 21-11872      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       21-11872               Opinion of the Court                         3

              In June 2020, Amodeo moved for compassionate release. 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that the Bureau of Prisons lacked
       the monitoring and medication system needed to manage his
       rapid-cycling bipolar disorder with psychotic features and chronic
       delusions. He argued that his health conditions of obesity, diabetes,
       asthma, hypertension, and sleep apnea, along with his mental ill-
       ness, increased his risk of complications from COVID-19. He also
       argued that the sentencing factors supported granting a sentencing
       reduction because he was not a danger to the community and had
       a history of complying with supervision.
              Less than a month later, the Bureau transferred Amodeo to
       home confinement. Amodeo filed a supplemental motion for com-
       passionate release. He acknowledged that his transfer to home con-
       finement alleviated his concerns about contracting COVID-19 in
       the prison environment but argued that the district court should
       reduce his sentence to time served because the home-confinement
       program could not provide him the necessary medical treatment
       and his “actual innocence” provided an “other reason,” U.S.S.G.
       § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D), that was extraordinary and compelling.
               The district court denied Amodeo’s motion for compassion-
       ate release. The district court ruled that Amodeo failed to prove
       that extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted a sentence
       reduction because his argument that “he could obtain better med-
       ical care if he was not in BOP custody” was not equivalent to alleg-
       ing that his conditions “substantially diminish[] the ability of [Amo-
       deo] to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional
USCA11 Case: 21-11872      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-11872

       facility.” And the district court found that our decision in United
       States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021), foreclosed Amo-
       deo’s argument that actual innocence could serve as an extraordi-
       nary and compelling “other reason.”
              The district court alternatively ruled that, even if Amodeo
       had established extraordinary and compelling reasons, it still would
       decline to reduce his sentence because of the need to protect the
       public, reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for
       the law, provide just punishment, and deter future crimes. 18
       U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). And because of this alternative basis for
       denying sentencing relief, it declined to decide whether Amodeo’s
       home constituted “a correctional facility,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt.
       n.1(A)(ii).
              The government has moved to dismiss Amodeo’s appeal
       and argues that his transfer to home confinement rendered his re-
       quest for compassionate release moot. It argues that the district
       court lacked jurisdiction to grant or deny Amodeo relief and that
       we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. We disagree.
                “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer
       ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the out-
       come.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335-36 (11th Cir.
       2001) (alteration in original). In other words, a case becomes moot
       and must be dismissed “[i]f events that occur subsequent to the fil-
       ing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give
       the . . . appellant meaningful relief.” Id. at 1336. “A case that be-
       comes moot at any point during the proceedings is no longer a
USCA11 Case: 21-11872      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       21-11872                Opinion of the Court                         5

       ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III, and is outside the
       jurisdiction of the federal courts.” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez,
       138 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
               This appeal is not moot. Although Amodeo is now on home
       confinement, which relieved his concerns about contracting
       COVID-19 in prison, Amodeo also asked the district court to re-
       duce his sentence to time served because he was dissatisfied with
       his treatment in the home-confinement program. Amodeo’s re-
       quest for compassionate release was not moot when the district
       court decided it. Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336. And because Amodeo
       still can receive relief in the form of a reduced sentence, we have
       jurisdiction over his appeal.
              We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release
       only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908,
       911 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion if it ap-
       plies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in
       making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly
       erroneous.” Id. “When review is only for abuse of discretion, it
       means that the district court had a ‘range of choice’ and that we
       cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different con-
       clusion had it been our call to make.” Id. at 912 (internal quotation
       marks omitted).
             A district “court may not modify a term of imprisonment
       once it has been imposed” except in specified circumstances. 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c); see Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1248. Section 3582(c), as
       amended by the First Step Act, gives the district court discretion to
USCA11 Case: 21-11872      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                 21-11872

       “reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the factors
       set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable” if
       a reduction is warranted for “extraordinary and compelling rea-
       sons” and “is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by
       the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A district
       court may deny a motion to reduce for lack of “extraordinary and
       compelling reasons” or because relief is inappropriate based on the
       statutory sentencing factors. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234,
       1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021).
              We need not address Amodeo’s arguments that his medical
       treatment provides an extraordinary and compelling reason for a
       sentence reduction because we can affirm on the alternative
       ground stated by the district court. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
       Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding “an appellant
       must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment
       against him is incorrect”); see also Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237-38 (“Be-
       cause all three conditions—i.e., support in the § 3553(a) factors, ex-
       traordinary and compelling reasons, and adherence to § 1B1.13’s
       policy statement—are necessary, the absence of even one would
       foreclose a sentence reduction.”). Amodeo has abandoned any
       challenge he could have made to the finding that the sentencing
       factors independently supported the denial of his motion. See
       Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681-82. Insofar as Amodeo argues that his ac-
       tual innocence warrants a sentence reduction, he acknowledges
       that our decision in Bryant barred the district court from finding it
       an extraordinary and compelling “other reason.” And we are
USCA11 Case: 21-11872      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 7 of 7

       21-11872                Opinion of the Court                         7

       bound by our precedent unless and until it is overruled by this
       Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v.
       Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). So Amodeo
       could not use a compassionate release motion to litigate his actual
       innocence, and he has offered no other explanation for why the al-
       ternative ground stated by the district court was an abuse of discre-
       tion. Because Amodeo has failed to meaningfully challenge this al-
       ternative ruling, “it follows that the district court’s judgment is due
       to be affirmed.” Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 683.
              We DENY the government’s motion to dismiss as moot and
       AFFIRM the denial of Amodeo’s motion for compassionate re-
       lease.