Court Opinion

ID: 9407251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 15:00:55.567815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.541802
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12979    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 07/06/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-12979
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       FRANK JACKSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80073-RS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12979     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-12979

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Frank Jackson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
       court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release. After
       careful consideration, we affirm.
                                        I.
               In 2008, Jackson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
       possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of co-
       caine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and one
       count of brandishing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in
       violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). For these crimes, the district
       court imposed a total sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment.
       Jackson appealed his sentence, and we affirmed. See United States
       v. Jackson, 369 F. App’x 984 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).
              In 2020, Jackson filed a motion for compassionate release.
       He argued that extraordinary and compelling reasons supported
       his request for a sentence reduction. He had previously contract-
       ed COVID-19 while incarcerated. He explained that it took the
       prison more than six weeks to diagnose him, and during that pe-
       riod his condition deteriorated. He developed pneumonia in both
       his lungs and required hospitalization. Even several months after
       he was released from the hospital, he continued to experience a
       persistent cough as well as shortness of breath, headaches, and
       dizziness. When Jackson sought medical treatment for his cough,
       prison medical staff told him that there was nothing they could
USCA11 Case: 21-12979         Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 07/06/2023         Page: 3 of 6

       21-12979                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       do. In addition, Jackson suffers from obesity. He argued that these
       conditions put him at risk of developing severe health conse-
       quences if he contracted COVID-19 again.
              Jackson further argued that his release would not pose a
       danger to the community. He explained that if he were released,
       he had a place to live and a job lined up. And, he argued, the sen-
       tencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 1 supported reduc-
       ing his sentence. He asserted that he had been rehabilitated while
       in prison and introduced evidence showing that while incarcer-
       ated he completed numerous educational programs, received pos-
       itive work performance ratings, and had a limited disciplinary his-
       tory.
              The district court denied Jackson’s motion for compassion-
       ate release. It concluded that (1) there were no extraordinary and
       compelling grounds for a sentence reduction and (2) a reduction
       was not warranted based on the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

       1 Under § 3553(a), a district court is required to impose a sentence “sufficient,
       but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the statute.
       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the serious-
       ness of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punishment;
       deter criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future crimi-
       nal conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or voca-
       tional training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2).
       The court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense,
       the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences avail-
       able, the applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the
       Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dispari-
       ties, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
USCA11 Case: 21-12979     Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 07/06/2023   Page: 4 of 6

       4                     Opinion of the Court                  21-12979

             This is Jackson’s appeal.
                                         II.
              We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial
       of a compassionate release request. See United States v. Harris,
       989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its dis-
       cretion when it commits a clear error of judgment, “applies an in-
       correct legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the
       determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly errone-
       ous.” Id. at 911–12.
                                         III.
               Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce an im-
       posed term of imprisonment if, after considering the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors, it concludes that “extraordinary and compelling reasons war-
       rant such a reduction” and the reduction is “consistent with” the
       applicable policy statement in the Sentencing Guidelines:
       § 1B1.13. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see United States v. Bryant,
       996 F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir. 2021). “[T]he only circumstances
       that can rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons
       for compassionate release are limited to those extraordinary and
       compelling reasons as described by [§] 1B1.13.” United States v. Gi-
       ron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2021).
              The application notes for § 1B1.13 set forth four categories
       of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for purposes of com-
       passionate release: (A) serious or terminal medical conditions,
       (B) advanced age, (C) family circumstances, and (D) “[o]ther
       [r]easons . . . [a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of
USCA11 Case: 21-12979     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 07/06/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       21-12979              Opinion of the Court                        5

       Prisons.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(D).
       Under our precedent, courts may not decide the contents of that
       fourth catch-all category of other reasons—such discretion is re-
       served solely for the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. See Bryant,
       996 F.3d at 1262–65.
              On appeal, Jackson argues that he satisfied the extraordi-
       nary and compelling reasons requirement because he demon-
       strated that he suffered from a serious medical condition as set
       forth under § 1B1.13. We disagree.
               The commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines explains
       that a defendant’s medical condition qualifies as an extraordinary
       and compelling reason justifying compassionate release when the
       defendant is suffering “from a serious mental or physical condi-
       tion” from which he “is not expected to recover” and that condi-
       tion “substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to pro-
       vide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility.”
       U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). Here, even assuming Jackson has
       shown that he continues to have a serious physical condition
       from which is not expected to recover, there is nothing in the
       record indicating that his condition “substantially diminishes” his
       ability to provide self-care in prison. Id. Accordingly, we conclude
       that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
USCA11 Case: 21-12979        Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 07/06/2023        Page: 6 of 6

       6                         Opinion of the Court                      21-12979

       that Jackson failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling
       reason for a sentence reduction.2
              AFFIRMED.

       2 On appeal, Jackson also challenges the district court’s alternative determi-
       nation that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor a sentence reduction. He ar-
       gues that the district court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors was so cursory
       that the decision was inadequate to allow for meaningful appellate review.
       Because we conclude that Jackson failed to demonstrate an extraordinary
       and compelling reason for a sentence reduction, we do not reach his argu-
       ment challenging the district court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. See
       United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1238 (11th Cir. 2021).