Court Opinion

ID: 9381481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:42.966227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.797375
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10984    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10984
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       ANDRE JAMAAL GUYTON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00093-WTM-CLR-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10984         Document: 22-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2023         Page: 2 of 8

       2                          Opinion of the Court                      22-10984

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Andre Guyton, pro se, appeals from the district court’s de-
       nial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
       He asserts he is more susceptible to severe symptoms should he
       contract COVID-19 because of his race and because he still suffers
       complications from the first time he had COVID-19. After review, 1
       we affirm the district court.
                                    I. TIMELINESS
              The Government contends Guyton’s appeal is untimely as
       to the underlying motion for compassionate release. Federal Rule
       of Appellate Procedure 4(b) provides a 14-day period to file a notice
       of appeal in criminal cases. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The
       14-day period provided in Rule 4(b) applies to Guyton’s appeal be-
       cause his motion for compassionate release is an extension of the
       underlying criminal case.
             Guyton signed his motion for reconsideration on January 18,
       2022, which was 14 days after the district court denied his motion

       1We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction
       under § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir.
       2021), cert. denied 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). However, we review a district court’s
       denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an abuse of discretion. United
       States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).
USCA11 Case: 22-10984      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023     Page: 3 of 8

       22-10984                Opinion of the Court                         3

       for compassionate release on January 4, 2022. See Jeffries v. United
       States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating we consider a
       pro se prisoner’s filings as filed on the date he delivers them to
       prison authorities for mailing and absent evidence to the contrary,
       we assume a prisoner provided his filing to prison officials on the
       date he signed it); United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412, 1414 (11th
       Cir. 1992) (explaining a motion for reconsideration in a criminal
       case must be filed within the period of time allotted for filing a no-
       tice of appeal in order to extend the time for filing the notice of
       appeal). The filing of the motion for reconsideration tolled the
       time Guyton had to file a notice of appeal, and the 14-day period
       did not begin to run again until the district court denied his motion
       for reconsideration on February 22, 2022. See United States v.
       Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1205 (11th Cir. 2012) abrogated on other
       grounds by Amendment 780 (stating the filing of a motion for re-
       consideration tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal and the time
       begins to run anew following disposition of the motion). Guyton’s
       notice of appeal was filed on March 23, 2022, which was more than
       14 days after the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsid-
       eration, but within the 30-day period where an extension for good
       cause or excusable neglect may be granted by the district court. See
       United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating
       in criminal cases, we treat a late notice of appeal, filed within 30
       days during which an extension is permissible, as a motion for ex-
       tension of time that should be decided by the district court); see
       also Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) (providing, upon a showing of excusable
       neglect or good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a
USCA11 Case: 22-10984      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2023     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10984

       notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expira-
       tion of the original appeal period). Nevertheless, the Government
       has assumed Guyton would receive such an extension for good
       cause or excusable neglect, and it has not requested this Court dis-
       miss Guyton’s appeal for untimeliness to the extent he appeals
       from the district court’s order on February 22, 2022. See United
       States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311-14 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining
       the 14-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal in criminal cases is
       a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, but when the govern-
       ment asserts timeliness as an issue on appeal, we must apply the
       time limits of Rule 4(b)).
              Because Guyton’s appeal from the denial of his motion for
       compassionate release was tolled by the motion for reconsidera-
       tion, and the Government has assumed Guyton’s untimeliness in
       appealing from the denial of the motion for reconsideration was
       due to excusable neglect or good cause, the Government has not
       moved to enforce the timeliness claims-processing rule and we ad-
       dress the merits of Guyton’s appeal.
                       II. COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
             District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term
       of imprisonment but may do so as permitted by statute. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c); United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir.
       2015). As amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act, that section
       now provides, in relevant part, that:
USCA11 Case: 22-10984      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 03/22/2023      Page: 5 of 8

       22-10984                Opinion of the Court                          5

              the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau
              of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the
              defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights
              to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a
              motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30
              days from the receipt of such a request by the warden
              of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier, may
              reduce the term of imprisonment . . . , after consider-
              ing the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
              that they are applicable, if it finds that . . . extraordi-
              nary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduc-
              tion . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with
              applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
              Commission.

       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
              As we have recently explained, to grant a reduction under
       § 3582(c)(1)(A), district courts must find three necessary conditions
       are satisfied, which are: “support in the § 3553(a) factors, extraordi-
       nary and compelling reasons, and adherence to § 1B1.13’s policy
       statement,” and the absence of any one of those conditions fore-
       closes a sentence reduction. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234,
       1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021). District courts do not need to address
       these three conditions in any particular sequence. Id. at 1237.
              The policy statement applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) is found
       in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The commentary to § 1B1.13 states that ex-
       traordinary and compelling reasons exist under any of the circum-
       stances listed, provided the court determines the defendant is not a
USCA11 Case: 22-10984     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023    Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-10984

       danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.
       See id., comment. (n.1). The commentary lists a prisoner’s medical
       condition as a possible extraordinary and compelling reason war-
       ranting a sentence reduction if he: (1) has a terminal disease; or
       (2) is suffering from a physical or mental condition that substan-
       tially diminishes his ability to provide self-care in prison and from
       which he is not expected to recover. Id., comment. (n.1(A)). The
       commentary also contains a catch-all provision for “other reasons,”
       which provides a prisoner may be eligible for a sentence reduction
       if the Director of the Bureau of Prisons determines there is an ex-
       traordinary and compelling reason. Id., comment. (n.1(D)).
               The policy statement in § 1B1.13 is applicable to all motions
       filed under § 3582(c)(1)(A), including those filed by prisoners, and
       district courts thus cannot reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A)
       unless it would be consistent with § 1B1.13. Bryant, 996 F.3d at
       1262. Accordingly, district courts are precluded “from finding ex-
       traordinary and compelling reasons within the catch-all provision
       beyond those specified” in § 1B1.13. United States v. Giron, 15
       F.4th 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 2021). We held “the confluence of [a
       prisoner’s] medical conditions and COVID-19” did not constitute
       an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate
       release when the prisoner’s medical conditions did not meet the
       criteria of § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)). Id. at 1346.
            The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
       Guyton’s motion for compassionate release because he did not
USCA11 Case: 22-10984        Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 03/22/2023        Page: 7 of 8

       22-10984                  Opinion of the Court                             7

       show an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. 2
       First, Guyton’s claim he established an extraordinary and compel-
       ling reason for his release because he is unable to receive the vac-
       cine against COVID-19 is foreclosed because the district court can-
       not find extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond those speci-
       fied in § 1B1.13. See Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262; Giron, 15 F.4th at
       1347. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in de-
       termining Guyton’s heart palpitations, shortness of breath, and
       numbness in his arm and leg, along with other symptoms that Guy-
       ton attributed to long-haul COVID-19 did not constitute an ex-
       traordinary and compelling reason for his release because Guyton
       did not show these conditions impair his ability to care for himself
       while in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 comment. (n.1(A)); Bryant,
       996 F.3d at 1249-50; Giron, 15 F.4th at 1346-47. Instead, the record
       reflects that Guyton has seen medical staff in prison multiple times,
       the staff has determined that anxiety may be causing a number of
       his symptoms, and Guyton has been seen for psychological help
       while in prison.
              Guyton’s argument his race and current symptoms create an
       extraordinary reason for release because they increase the likeli-
       hood he will experience severe COVID-19 symptoms if he con-
       tracted it again is too speculative to warrant a reduction of his

       2 We need not consider whether the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of grant-
       ing Guyton relief because his failure to show an extraordinary and compelling
       reason for his release is dispositive. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237-38.
USCA11 Case: 22-10984      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023     Page: 8 of 8

       8                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10984

       sentence. Section 1B1.13 offers relief to inmates who are suffering
       from a physical or mental condition that diminishes their ability to
       provide self-care while in prison, but Guyton seeks relief based on
       speculation that he will contract COVID-19 again, and if he does,
       that he will suffer severe symptoms. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, com-
       ment. (n.1(A)). Accordingly, Guyton has not shown his medical
       conditions warrant relief because he has not shown he is suffering
       from a condition that limits his ability to care for himself in prison.
       See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262.
            Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Guyton’s motions for
       compassionate release and for reconsideration.
              AFFIRMED.