Court Opinion

ID: 9907364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:00:38.74451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:32.787776
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10904    Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 12/06/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10904
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DIEGO ERNESTO OBREGON-CAICEDO,
       a.k.a. Pampiro

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00331-JSM-SPF-3
USCA11 Case: 23-10904      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10904

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Diego Obregon-Caicedo, a federal prisoner and native and
       citizen of Colombia, appeals pro se the denial of his third motion for
       compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that
       the district court abused its discretion by failing to address whether
       his post-release deportation is an extraordinary and compelling rea-
       son for compassionate release and by failing to adequately consider
       the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a). He also challenges
       the denial of his request for appointed counsel. We affirm.
              After Obregon-Caicedo pleaded guilty to conspiring to dis-
       tribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel
       subject to United States jurisdiction, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a)
       and (b), 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), the district court sentenced him
       to 188 months of imprisonment. In 2021, the district court granted
       the government’s motion for a sentence reduction, Fed. R. Crim.
       P. 35, and reduced Obregon-Caicedo’s sentence to 151 months. In
       2022, Obregon-Caidedo moved for compassionate release, 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and appointed counsel, but the district court
       denied the motion because his medical conditions were properly
       managed by the Bureau of Prisons and the statutory sentencing fac-
       tors did not warrant early release. While his first motion was
USCA11 Case: 23-10904      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10904               Opinion of the Court                          3

       pending appeal, he filed a second motion for compassionate re-
       lease, which the district court dismissed.
              In 2023, Obregon-Caicedo again moved for compassionate
       release and appointed counsel. He argued that although his pro-
       jected release date is in 2024, his medical conditions, conditions of
       confinement, family circumstances, and rehabilitation warranted
       early release. He argued that he posed no danger to the public be-
       cause he would be deported upon release and that he had taken
       several educational courses to further his rehabilitation.
              The district court denied Obregon-Caicedo’s motion be-
       cause it found no new information warranting early release. It
       stated that it considered the statutory sentencing factors, and it de-
       termined that the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness
       of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punish-
       ment, afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and provide
       the defendant with education and vocational training “still exists.”
              We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release
       for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911
       (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies
       an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making
       the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erro-
       neous.” 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 conclusion
       had it been our call to make.” Id. at 912.
USCA11 Case: 23-10904      Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 12/06/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10904

               The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
       Obregon-Caicedo’s motion for compassionate release. It consid-
       ered the statutory sentencing factors and explained that they did
       not support early release. See United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180,
       1185 (11th Cir. 2021). Although Obregon-Caicedo argues that the
       district court failed to consider his rehabilitation efforts or that his
       post-release deportation obviated the need to consider protecting
       the public, the district court was not required to discuss them. See
       United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1241 (11th Cir. 2021). And be-
       cause we affirm on this ground, we need not address
       Obregon-Caicedo’s argument that his deportation status qualified
       as an extraordinary and compelling reason for his early release. See
       id. at 1237; Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680
       (11th Cir. 2014).
              The district court also did not abuse its discretion by not ap-
       pointing counsel for Obregon-Caicedo. He was not entitled to ap-
       pointed counsel in seeking a sentencing reduction, see United States
       v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 794–95 (11th Cir. 2009), and his arguments
       were not “so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a
       trained practitioner,” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir.
       1993).
             We AFFIRM the denial of Obregon-Caicedo’s motion to re-
       duce his sentence and for appointment of counsel.