Court Opinion

ID: 9909809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 14:00:53.118193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:01.006847
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12797    Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12797
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        ROBROY WILLIAMS,
        a.k.a. Spy,
        a.k.a. Spy Williams,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12797     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023    Page: 2 of 10

        2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12797

                   D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00158-SCB-TBM-1
                          ____________________

        Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Robroy Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
        peals the District Court’s denial of his motion for compassionate
        release, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(A)(1). Williams argues that the
        District Court erred in finding that he was ineligible for compas-
        sionate release because he meets the requirements in U.S. Sent’g
        Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(B) (U.S. Sent’g
        Comm’n 2021). Williams also argues that the District Court
        abused its discretion by relying on his Jamaican citizenship and the
        nature of his offense of conviction to determine that he posed a
        danger to the community, and by ignoring his dangerousness con-
        sidering his advanced age.
                                  I. Background
               A federal grand jury indicted Williams, and seven codefend-
        ants, with conspiring to distribute cocaine and marijuana with in-
        tent to unlawfully import it into the United States, in violation of
        21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 960(a)(3), 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 960(b)(1)(G). The
        grand jury also indicted Williams, and one codefendant, with con-
        spiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel
        subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of
        46 U.S.C. § 1903(j), (g), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Williams
        pled guilty to both counts.
USCA11 Case: 22-12797       Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 3 of 10

        22-12797                Opinion of the Court                          3

              The District Court sentenced Williams to 360 months’ im-
        prisonment. Williams directly appealed, challenging the enhance-
        ments imposed by the court and the reasonableness of his sentence,
        but we affirmed Williams’s sentence.
               Williams, through his attorney, moved to correct his sen-
        tence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he received ineffective
        assistance of counsel. The District Court denied his § 2255 motion.
        Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a second motion to correct his
        sentence under § 2255, arguing that counsel was ineffective in his
        previous § 2255 proceeding. The District Court denied Williams’s
        second § 2255 motion because it was untimely and successive.
                Williams then moved pro se for home confinement or a re-
        duction of his sentence in the form of compassionate release under
        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argued that his previous stroke and
        his medical conditions of diabetes, high cholesterol, vulnerability
        to varicella-zoster virus, high glucose, hypertension, and odnasal
        pterygium increased his risk of severe illness or death from
        COVID-19. Williams attached supporting documentation to his
        motion, including: his initial request for home confinement, the fa-
        cility administrator’s denial of his request, an affidavit from his sis-
        ter confirming his release plan, an affidavit from a doctor support-
        ing any defendant’s attempt to seek release from custody during
        the COVID-19 pandemic, a memorandum from the Attorney Gen-
        eral instructing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to prioritize home
        confinement as an appropriate response to COVID-19, and his
        medical records.
USCA11 Case: 22-12797     Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023    Page: 4 of 10

        4                     Opinion of the Court                22-12797

               The Government opposed Williams’s motion. It argued
        that the authority under § 3582 to grant home confinement was
        committed solely to the BOP’s discretion. It noted (1) that Wil-
        liams’s release plan conflicted with his unresolved detainer with
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), (2) that Williams
        had more than eighteen months remaining to serve, and (3) that
        Williams had not served 50% of his current 360-month sentence.
        The Government also explained that Williams’s motion could be
        granted only upon a finding of extraordinary and compelling cir-
        cumstances, and that his conditions were not specified in the Sen-
        tencing Commission’s policy statement as medical conditions that
        constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassion-
        ate release. It argued that even if Williams could establish an ex-
        traordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, the
        § 3553(a) factors—including the nature of his criminal conduct and
        the need to protect the community—weighed strongly against
        granting him compassionate release.
               The District Court denied Williams’s motion. It concluded
        that Williams failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling
        reason warranting compassionate release. It also concluded that
        the § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting Williams’s motion
        because he would pose a danger to the community if released. It
        noted that Williams “was convicted of a serious drug offense and
        [that he] has an unresolved INS detainer with [ICE] because he is a
        Jamaican citizen who will be deported after serving his sentence.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12797         Document: 20-1          Date Filed: 12/14/2023         Page: 5 of 10

        22-12797                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

                After Williams was transferred to a new prison, he filed an-
        other motion for compassionate release. He referenced the medi-
        cal conditions listed in his previous motion and noted that he also
        had a history of heart problems. He emphasized that he was
        sixty-five years old, had served over half of his sentence, and was a
        nonviolent offender. If granted release, he planned to return to Ja-
        maica to become a youth mentor and be with his family. He at-
        tached more medical records from his previous prison, the facility’s
        denial of his request for compassionate release, and evidence that
        he had completed multiple courses relating to self-improvement
        while serving his sentence.
                The District Court denied Williams’s motion without the
        need for the Government’s response. The court noted that Wil-
        liams was not terminally ill, and his medical problems were
        well-controlled in the BOP and not such that he could not provide
        self-care. The District Court also considered the § 3553(a) factors
        and concluded that they weighed against granting Williams’s mo-
        tion because he posed a danger to the community if released. Wil-
        liams appealed. 1

        1 After he filed his appeal, Williams filed a motion for reconsideration, in which

        he reiterated his arguments from his original motion and emphasized his med-
        ical ailments, his good behavior, and his rehabilitative efforts. He also attached
        medical records, a news article on COVID-19 at BOP institutions, and certifi-
        cates of completion for coursework at the prison. The District Court denied
        Williams’s motion for reconsideration. It found that Williams failed to
        demonstrate the availability of new evidence, an intervening change in con-
        trolling law, or a need to correct a clear error or manifest injustice.
USCA11 Case: 22-12797       Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 6 of 10

        6                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12797

                                 II. Legal Standards
                “We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen-
        tence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” United States v.
        Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). “After eligibility is es-
        tablished, we review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s
        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. “The abuse of
        discretion standard of review ‘is not simply a rubber stamp.’” Id.
        (quoting United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th Cir. 2017)
        (per curiam)). “A court must explain its sentencing decisions ade-
        quately enough to allow for meaningful appellate review.” John-
        son, 877 F.3d at 997. The abuse of discretion standard “does afford
        district courts a ‘range of choice,’ and we ‘cannot reverse just be-
        cause we might have come to a different conclusion.’” Giron,
        15 F.4th at 1345 (quoting United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912
        (11th Cir. 2021)). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies
        an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making
        its determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” Id.
                “We liberally construe pro se filings, including pro se applica-
        tions for relief pursuant to § 2255.” Winthrop-Redin v. United States,
        767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014). That said, we may not rewrite
        filings for pro se litigants. See Benning v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corrs.,
        71 F.4th 1324, 1340 (11th Cir. 2023).
                                   III. Discussion
               Williams argues that the District Court erred in failing to lib-
        erally construe his arguments that his advanced age was the basis
        for his motion for compassionate release. He asserts that because
USCA11 Case: 22-12797         Document: 20-1        Date Filed: 12/14/2023         Page: 7 of 10

        22-12797                  Opinion of the Court                                7

        he is sixty-five years old, has served more than ten years, and has
        deteriorating health conditions he is eligible for a reduction of his
        sentence under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(B). The Government
        argues that the District Court appropriately considered § 1B1.13
        cmt. n.1(B) and that Williams failed to mention the age provision
        and failed to argue that he had experienced a serious deterioration
        in physical or mental health because of the aging process. We
        agree with the Government.
                “A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de-
        fendant’s sentence and may do so ‘only when authorized by a stat-
        ute or rule.’” Giron, 15 F.4th at 1345 (quoting United States v.
        Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 606 (11th Cir. 2015)). “A statutory exception
        exists for compassionate release.” Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
               Under this exception, a district court may grant a pris-
               oner’s motion for compassionate release after deter-
               mining that (1) “extraordinary and compelling rea-
               sons warrant such a reduction,” (2) “such a reduction
               is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
               by the Sentencing Commission,” and (3) § 3553(a)
               sentencing factors weigh in favor of a reduction. 2

        2 Those factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and

        the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence
        imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the
        sentence range established; (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the
        Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence dispari-
        ties among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
        similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the
        offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 22-12797      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 8 of 10

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12797

        Giron, 15 F.4th at 1346 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
               “The Sentencing Commission has issued a policy statement
        concerning this exception: Section 1B1.13.” Id. “The application
        notes for Section 1B1.13 identify four general categories of ‘extraor-
        dinary and compelling reasons’: medical, age, family, and a
        ‘catch-all “other reasons” category.’” Id. (quoting United States v.
        Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1249–50 (11th Cir. 2021)); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
        cmt. n.1(A)–(D). Relevant here is the age category. Under that
        category, a defendant can establish extraordinary and compelling
        circumstances if he or she is (1) “at least 65 years old”; (2) “experi-
        encing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because
        of the aging process”; and (3) has “served at least 10 years or 75
        percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.”
        U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1(B). We are bound by the Commission’s
        definition of extraordinary and compelling reasons. See Bryant,
        996 F.3d at 1251–52.
               The District Court did not err in determining that Williams
        was ineligible for compassionate release. To begin, the court con-
        sidered all the subsections within § 1B1.13, including the section
        describing extraordinary and compelling circumstances based on
        age. The court explained that Williams “fail[ed] . . . to demonstrate
        an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate
        release because his circumstances do not fall within U.S.S.G.
        § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1(A)–(D). He is not terminal, his medical prob-
        lems are well-controlled in the [BOP], and they are not such that
        he cannot provide self-care.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12797        Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 12/14/2023       Page: 9 of 10

        22-12797                 Opinion of the Court                             9

                 Though the District Court appears to have focused its dis-
        cussion on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A), that decision was reason-
        able. Williams failed to argue that he was eligible under n.1(B).
        Instead, he noted that “he is a high-risk inmate, due to his medical
        issues, and [he] is 65 years old which is the age hardest to recover
        if such coronavirus is contracted.” True, Williams mentions his
        age throughout his motion, but nowhere does he argue that he ex-
        perienced a “serious deterioration in physical or mental health be-
        cause of the aging process.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(B)(ii) (empha-
        sis added). The District Court therefore reasonably focused on
        Williams’s various medical conditions under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
        cmt. n.1(A). 3 See Benning, 71 F.4th at 1340 (“Although we review
        pro se filings liberally, we cannot ‘rewrite [a] . . . pleading’ to request
        a different form of relief.” (alteration and omission in original)
        (quoting Campbell v. Air. Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th
        Cir. 2014))). And the District Court did not err in finding that Wil-
        liams’s medical conditions did not qualify as an extraordinary and
        compelling reason for early release. See, e.g., Harris, 989 F.3d at 912
        (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deny-
        ing compassionate release to an inmate with hypertension, despite
        the existence of COVID-19); Giron, 15 F.4th at 1346 (holding the
        same where the prisoner’s high cholesterol, high blood pressure,

        3 Moreover, Williams’s health conditions were noted in a 2009 medical record

        when Williams was fifty-two years old. On this record, there is nothing to
        suggest that Williams has experienced a serious deterioration in physical or
        mental health because of the aging process.
USCA11 Case: 22-12797    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 10 of 10

        10                    Opinion of the Court               22-12797

        and coronary artery disease were “manageable in prison, despite
        the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic”).
               Extraordinary and compelling circumstances did not war-
        rant granting Williams’s motion. It is therefore unnecessary to
        reach whether the District Court abused its discretion in applying
        the § 3553(a) factors. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1350.
                                IV. Conclusion
              Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s order denying
        Williams’s motion for compassionate release.
              AFFIRMED.