Court Opinion

ID: 9353471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 22:00:52.348363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:16.498904
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11161    Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 01/11/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11161
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       STANLEY JEROME CALLAWAY,
       a.k.a. One-Two,
       a.k.a. Two,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-11161      Document: 15-1       Date Filed: 01/11/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11161

                   D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00209-SDM-AAS-4
                          ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Stanley Callaway pro se appeals the district court’s denial of
       his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the
       First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194. “We
       review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of an eligible
       movant’s First Step Act motion and ‘must affirm unless the district
       court made a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal
       standard.’” United States v. Potts, 997 F.3d 1142, 1145 n.2 (11th Cir.
       2021) (quoting United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1086 n.4
       (11th Cir. 2020)). Callaway argues that the district court abused its
       discretion by refusing to reduce his sentence under the First Step
       Act. We disagree and affirm.
               First, Callaway argues that the district court’s failure to con-
       sider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in ruling on his
       motion resulted “in a grave miscarriage of justice.” But we recently
       held that the district court need not consider any of those factors
       when exercising its “wide discretion” under the First Step Act.
       United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1314–16 (11th Cir. 2021)
       (“The First Step Act is clear—it is a permissive statute that does not
       mandate consideration of the §3553(a) sentencing factors by a dis-
       trict court when exercising its discretion to reduce a sentence under
       section 404(b) of the First Step Act.”); Potts, 997 F.3d at 1145 (“[A]
USCA11 Case: 22-11161      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 01/11/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-11161                Opinion of the Court                         3

       district court may, but is not required to, consider the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce a sen-
       tence under the First Step Act.”). And, in any event, the district
       court explicitly stated in its order denying Callaway’s motion that
       it had conducted “a careful review” of the Section 3553(a) factors,
       “including especially the need to protect the community and the
       need to enhance respect for the law (including the rules and regu-
       lations necessary to the health and safety of both a prison’s inmates
       and a prison’s staff).”
               Second, Callaway argues that the court’s decision “does not
       allow for meaningful appellate review” because it does not ade-
       quately explain why the motion was denied See Stevens, 997 F.3d
       at 1317 (“At a minimum, a district court must adequately explain
       its sentencing decision to allow for meaningful appellate review.”).
       We disagree. The district court’s decision exceeded the “minimum
       explanation” required to afford meaningful review. Id.
               In its order denying Callaway’s motion, the district court
       reasoned that Callaway’s prison disciplinary history “is unusually
       long and gruesome,” comprising “seventy-eight disciplinary of-
       fenses,” many of which were “abusive” sexual acts directed at
       prison staff. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2403
       (2022) (“[W]hen deciding whether to grant First Step Act motions,”
       district courts may consider “postsentencing evidence of . . . prison
       infractions as probative.”). The court added that it had conducted
       “a careful review” of (1) the presentence report, (2) the sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-11161      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 01/11/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11161

       guidelines, (3) the parties’ pleadings, (4) the balance of the record,
       and (5) the Section 3553(a) factors.
              This explanation is “enough to satisfy this Court that the dis-
       trict court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a rea-
       soned basis for exercising its discretion.” Stevens, 997 F.3d at 1318;
       cf. Potts, 997 F.3d at 1146 (“The district court’s explanation, while
       brief, was sufficient,” where it “stated that, after reviewing the gov-
       ernment’s response and the probation offer’s memorandum, it had
       determined the §3553(a) factors indicated that a reduction was not
       warranted under the facts and circumstances of Potts’ case.”).
              AFFIRMED.