Court Opinion

ID: 9950389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 20:00:58.244215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:43.641888
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12660    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12660
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ROBERT SHAPIRO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-20178-CMA-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12660       Document: 27-1        Date Filed: 03/13/2024       Page: 2 of 4

       2                        Opinion of the Court                    23-12660

       Before NEWSOM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Robert Shapiro appeals following the district court’s denial
       of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court denied the motion based on the
       finding that Shapiro did not establish that extraordinary and com-
       pelling reasons existed to grant the motion, and even if they did
       exist, that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not weigh
       in favor of granting the motion. On appeal, Shapiro challenges
       these findings and argues that the district court’s order failed to ad-
       equately explain its reasoning. In response, the government moves
       for summary affirmance.1 After review, we grant the govern-
       ment’s motion and summarily affirm the district court’s denial of
       Shapiro’s motion for a sentence reduction.
               Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
       one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there
       can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.”
       Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
       We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a
       prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction. United
       States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court

       1 The government also moved to stay the briefing schedule, but the filing of

       the motion for summary affirmance necessarily stayed the briefing schedule.
       See 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c). As such, we deny as moot the government’s motion
       in that respect.
USCA11 Case: 23-12660      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-12660                Opinion of the Court                          3

       abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows
       improper procedures in making the determination, or makes ﬁnd-
       ings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id.
              District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a de-
       fendant’s sentence and “may do so only when authorized by a stat-
       ute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir.
       2015). In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act, which, in part,
       amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to increase the use and transpar-
       ency of compassionate release of federal prisoners. See First Step
       Act § 603, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018).
       As relevant here, the statute now allows a district court to reduce a
       sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons pursuant to
       § 3582(c)(1)(A). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
               A district court may grant a motion for a sentence reduction
       if: (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction;
       (2) the reduction would be consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13’s pol-
       icy statements; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of the
       reduction. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir.
       2021). When the district court ﬁnds that one of these three prongs
       is not met, it need not examine the other prongs. Id.; see also United
       States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2021).
             Factors under § 3553(a) that the district court may consider
       include the nature and circumstances of the oﬀense, the history
       and characteristics of the defendant, the seriousness of the crime,
       the promotion of respect for the law, just punishment, protecting
       the public from the defendant’s crimes, and adequate deterrence.
USCA11 Case: 23-12660      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12660

       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court need not address in its order
       each of the § 3553(a) factors or all the mitigating evidence. Tinker,
       14 F.4th at 1241. Instead, the court’s acknowledgement that it con-
       sidered all applicable § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments,
       along with “enough analysis that meaningful appellate review of
       the factors’ application can take place,” is suﬃcient. Id. at 1240-41
       (internal quotation marks omitted). The weight given to any
       § 3553(a) factor is within the district court’s discretion. Id. at 1241.
              Here, we grant the government’s motion for summary aﬃr-
       mance because its position is clearly correct as a matter of law.
       Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The district court’s ﬁnding
       that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against Shapiro’s release was
       enough to preclude relief because the court was required to ﬁnd
       that all necessary conditions were satisﬁed before it granted a re-
       duction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237, 1240; Giron,
       15 F.4th at 1345. Additionally, the court suﬃciently explained the
       foregoing reasons for denying the motion and clearly indicated that
       it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, even listing the factors it be-
       lieved weighed against Shapiro’s early release. Thus, whether
       Shapiro demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling” reasons is
       immaterial because the district court found that the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors did not warrant early release, and it did not abuse its discretion
       in making that ﬁnding. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1240.
             Thus, the district court’s denial of Shapiro’s motion for a
       sentence reduction is AFFIRMED.