Court Opinion

ID: 9405197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 19:02:01.130176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.216460
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10293    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 06/27/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10293
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RODOLFO ORTIZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20710-JAL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10293           Document: 37-1           Date Filed: 06/27/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                            Opinion of the Court                    22-10293

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Rodolfo Ortiz, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A), as modified by § 603(b) of the First Step Act, 1 and
       the denial of his motion for reconsideration. After review, 2 we af-
       firm.
               Section 3582(c) empowers a district court to modify a term
       of imprisonment under certain circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
       As amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act, § 3582(c) now pro-
       vides, in relevant part, that:
                 the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau
                 of Prisons [(BOP)], or upon motion of the defendant
                 after the defendant has fully exhausted all administra-
                 tive rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a
                 motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30
                 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden
                 of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier, may
                 reduce the term of imprisonment . . . , after consider-
                 ing the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the

       1
           Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).
       2 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s
       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion and the denial of a motion for reconsidera-
       tion of that order. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021);
       United States v. Llewlyn, 879 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018).
USCA11 Case: 22-10293         Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 06/27/2023          Page: 3 of 6

       22-10293                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

               extent that they are applicable, if it finds that . . . ex-
               traordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
               reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent
               with applicable policy statements issued by the Sen-
               tencing Commission . . . .

       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
               The policy statement applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A), U.S.S.G.
       § 1B1.13, states that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist un-
       der any of the circumstances listed, provided the court determines
       the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or
       to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). U.S.S.G.
       § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1). Under § 1B1.13, a defendant must show
       (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release; (2) that his
       release would satisfy the § 3553(a) factors;3 and (3) that he does not
       pose a danger to the community. See United States v. Tinker,
       14 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining to grant a reduc-
       tion under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must find that all three

       3 Under § 3553(a), a district court’s sentence must be sufficient, but not greater
       than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing, which are as follows: re-
       flecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, provid-
       ing just punishment, deterring future criminal conduct, protecting the public,
       and providing the defendant with any needed training or treatment. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Section 3553(a) also requires district courts to consider the
       nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and charac-
       teristics, the kinds of sentences available, the Sentencing Guidelines, any per-
       tinent policy statement, the need to avoid disparate sentences, and the need
       to provide restitution to any victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(3)-(7).
USCA11 Case: 22-10293        Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 06/27/2023        Page: 4 of 6

       4                         Opinion of the Court                    22-10293

       necessary conditions are satisfied, and district courts need not ad-
       dress these three conditions in a specific sequence, as the absence
       of one forecloses a sentence reduction).
               The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
       Ortiz’s criminal history outweighed his post-incarceration rehabil-
       itation efforts for purposes of his dangerousness to the community
       and the § 3553(a) factors. 4 Although Ortiz argues the offenses he
       committed between the ages of 22 and 26 should not heavily weigh
       against him, he largely cites documents supporting lower sentences
       for minors, not young adults. Ortiz committed a wide array of of-
       fenses over the course of several years and showed a trend of esca-
       lation, beginning with carrying a concealed firearm and escalating
       to kidnapping and third-degree murder. During several offenses,
       Ortiz made threatening statements to or about various individuals.
       Although Ortiz notes the instant offense was a sting operation
       without real drugs, he believed that real drugs were involved, rep-
       resented himself as a professional; confirmed he would be armed
       during the robbery; and was in a vehicle with black ski masks, black
       shirts, black gloves, black hats, makeshift handcuffs, loaded pistols,
       and police badges. Additionally, Ortiz had several infractions in
       prison, including ones involving a weapon and methamphetamine.

       4 Because the district court assumed Ortiz presented extraordinary and com-
       pelling reasons for his release, and denied him relief based on the § 3553(a)
       factors and the danger he posed to the community, we do not address Ortiz’s
       arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See
       Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237-38.
USCA11 Case: 22-10293      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-10293                Opinion of the Court                         5

       The district court was entitled to weigh those factors more heavily
       than his rehabilitative efforts. See United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d
       1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (stating the district court’s “[e]xamining
       and weighing these considerations—which may point in different
       directions—is suffused with discretion”).
               The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying
       Ortiz’s motion for reconsideration. Ortiz raised only one poten-
       tially new issue—an issue he could not have raised in his initial mo-
       tion—the prospect of Legionnaire’s disease at his facility. See Wil-
       chombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)
       (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old
       matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been
       raised prior to the entry of judgment,” including “new arguments
       that were previously available, but not pressed.” (quotation marks
       omitted)). However, that new issue only went to extraordinary
       and compelling reasons for relief, which the district court assumed
       Ortiz had presented. The issue did not relate to the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors or the danger the district court found Ortiz posed to the com-
       munity.
USCA11 Case: 22-10293         Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 06/27/2023         Page: 6 of 6

       6                          Opinion of the Court                       22-10293

              The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
       Ortiz’s motion for compassionate release or his motion for recon-
       sideration. 5 Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
               AFFIRMED.

       5 We do not address the issues that Ortiz raises for the first time in his reply
       brief or his arguments that are not bases for relief under § 3582(c), such as the
       procedural and constitutional appropriateness of his convictions, sentences,
       and PSI calculations.