Court Opinion

ID: 9910036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 19:01:07.714939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:36.147400
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10543    Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10543
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MONIQUE MOORE,
       a.k.a. Nikki,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00190-SPC-MRM-2
USCA11 Case: 23-10543      Document: 16-1         Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                   23-10543

                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Appellant Monique Moore, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals
       the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) mo-
       tion for compassionate release. Moore argues that her serious med-
       ical conditions constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for
       her release. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the rec-
       ord, we aﬃrm the district court’s order denying Moore’s motion
       for compassionate relief.
                                             I.
              “While we read briefs ﬁled by pro se litigants liberally, issues
       not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
       Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 879, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal cita-
       tions omitted). An issue is not briefed on appeal when it is not spe-
       ciﬁcally and clearly identiﬁed by a party in its opening brief. Access
       Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
              A district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion for a
       sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United
       States v Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court
       has no inherent authority to modify a defendant’s sentence and
       may only do so when authorized by a statute or rule.” Id. (internal
       quotation marks omitted). A district court can reduce a sentence
       based on a motion for compassionate release if (1) there are ex-
       traordinary and compelling reasons; (2) the reduction is consistent
USCA11 Case: 23-10543      Document: 16-1         Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 3 of 4

       23-10543               Opinion of the Court                          3

       with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Com-
       mission; and (3) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors favor release. Id. at
       1346. The absence of any of the three conditions forecloses a sen-
       tence reduction. Id. at 1349-50.
                The § 3553(a) factors include the nature of the oﬀense, the
       defendant’s history and characteristics, promoting respect for the
       law, providing just punishment, deterring crime, protecting public
       safety, and avoiding sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A
       district court abuses its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
       if it fails to consider relevant factors, gives signiﬁcant weight to an
       improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judg-
       ment. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1241 (11th Cir. 2021).
                                            II.
              As an initial matter, Moore has abandoned any challenge to
       the district court’s ﬁnding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against
       her release. Even construing her pro se brief liberally, she does not
       reference the factors and does not speciﬁcally and clearly identify
       the issue on appeal. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874; Access Now, 385
       F.3d at 1330. Rather, Moore argues that the district court erred by
       denying her motion because it determined that she failed to show
       that her medical conditions were terminal or prevented her from
       caring for herself while incarcerated.
              Regardless, even if Moore had not abandoned the issue, the
       record demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its discre-
       tion in ﬁnding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against Moore’s
       release. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1345. Moore was a major ﬁgure in a
USCA11 Case: 23-10543      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10543

       signiﬁcant drug conspiracy by maintaining the house where the
       drugs were distributed. Moore also had a signiﬁcant criminal his-
       tory and a high risk of recidivism. Moreover, Moore has served less
       than 4 years of her 17.5-year sentence. In denying her §
       3582(c)(1)(A) motion, the district court explicitly considered the na-
       ture of her oﬀense, her criminal history, and the need to protect
       the public. Moore has not shown that the district court failed to
       consider relevant factors, gave signiﬁcant weight to an improper
       factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in its analysis. See
       Tinker, 154 F.4th at 1241.
              Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
       discretion in ﬁnding that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor release,
       we need not address whether there are extraordinary and compel-
       ling reasons for Moore’s release. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1346-50 (stat-
       ing that a motion for compassionate release is not warranted unless
       all 3 conditions are met and the order in which the district court
       considers the conditions is irrelevant). Accordingly, based on the
       aforementioned reasons, we aﬃrm the district court’s order deny-
       ing Moore’s motion for compassionate release. See id. at 1347,
       1350.
              AFFIRMED.