Court Opinion

ID: 9369959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 15:00:56.769799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.326255
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12157    Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 02/10/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12157
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       BARRINGTON MILLER,
       a.k.a. Doggie,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cr-00147-LGW-CLR-4
USCA11 Case: 22-12157      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12157

                            ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Barrington Miller appeals the district court’s denial of his
       motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. section
       3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm.
              Miller is serving a ten-year sentence for various drug of-
       fenses. He moved for compassionate release because of the coro-
       navirus pandemic, arguing that there were “extraordinary and
       compelling reasons” for his release. His medical conditions, Miller
       asserted—including obesity, pre-diabetes, and hypertension—put
       him at an increased risk for complications if he contracted the coro-
       navirus. Miller also contended that, regardless of his vaccination
       status, the prison lockdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic pre-
       vented him from adequately managing his hypertension and pre-
       diabetes through diet and exercise, which led to high blood pres-
       sure. Finally, he argued that he wasn’t a danger to the community,
       based on his nonviolent criminal history and minimal disciplinary
       record while incarcerated, and that the purposes of the sec-
       tion 3553(a) factors already had been met by the portion of his sen-
       tence already served.
              The government responded that the district court should
       deny Miller’s compassionate release motion because his medical
       conditions didn’t substantially diminish his ability to engage in self-
       care in prison, his medical conditions weren’t extraordinary and
USCA11 Case: 22-12157      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-12157               Opinion of the Court                         3

       compelling, he already had received a downward variance at sen-
       tencing, and he hadn’t shown that the prison was unable to treat
       him adequately.
               The district court denied Miller’s compassionate release mo-
       tion because (1) he didn’t show that his medical condition substan-
       tially diminished his ability to engage in self-care, (2) his medical
       condition wasn’t extraordinary and compelling, and (3) after con-
       sidering the section 3553(a) factors, he shouldn’t be released two
       and one-half years early.
              We review the district court’s denial of a compassionate re-
       lease request for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989
       F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion
       when it commits a clear error of judgment, “applies an incorrect
       legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the deter-
       mination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id.
       at 911–12 (citations omitted). Abuse of discretion review “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.
             Miller moved for compassionate release under section
       3582(c)(1)(A), which provides that
             the court, upon motion of . . . the defendant . . . 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 . . .
USCA11 Case: 22-12157      Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12157

              extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
              reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent
              with applicable policy statements issued by the [s]en-
              tencing [c]ommission.
       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
              Under this provision, “a district court may reduce a term of
       imprisonment if (1) the [section] 3553(a) sentencing factors favor
       doing so, (2) there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for
       doing so, and[ ] . . . (3) doing so wouldn’t endanger any person or
       the community within the meaning of [guideline section] 1B1.13’s
       policy statement.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1235
       (11th Cir. 2021) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). “Because all
       three conditions—i.e., support in the [section] 3553(a) factors, ex-
       traordinary and compelling reasons, and adherence to [section]
       1B1.13’s policy statement—are necessary, the absence of even one
       would foreclose a sentence reduction.” Id. at 1237–38.
               On appeal, Miller argues that the district court abused its dis-
       cretion in determining that he hadn’t presented an “extraordinary
       and compelling reason” for compassionate release and that the sec-
       tion 3553(a) factors didn’t warrant his early release. The district
       court, Miller contends, should’ve relied on the Centers for Disease
       Control and Prevention’s guidelines and the Department of Jus-
       tice’s internal guidance rather than on guideline section 1B1.13. In
       support, Miller relies on United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th
       Cir. 2021) (holding that section 1B1.13 applies only to motions of
USCA11 Case: 22-12157      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-12157                Opinion of the Court                         5

       the Bureau of Prisons), which he misidentifies as an Eleventh Cir-
       cuit case.
               Regardless of what the Fifth Circuit has said on the issue, the
       district court had to rely on guideline section 1B1.13 because we’ve
       said so. “Section 1B1.13’s policy statement is applicable to all mo-
       tions under [section] 3582(c)(1)(A), and, accordingly, district courts
       may not reduce a sentence under [s]ection 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a
       reduction would be consistent with [guideline section] 1B1.13.”
       Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237 (quotation omitted). Here, compassionate
       release wouldn’t be consistent with guideline section 1B1.13.
              Section 1B1.13 provides that, in some limited circumstances,
       a defendant’s medical condition may be an extraordinary and com-
       pelling reason for compassionate release. The defendant must
       show either that he’s: (1) “suffering from a terminal illness,” or (2)
       “suffering from a serious physical or medical condition” or “a seri-
       ous functional or cognitive impairment” or “experiencing deterio-
       rating physical or mental health because of the aging process” and
       that the condition, impairment, or deterioration “substantially di-
       minishes” his “ability” to “provide self-care” in prison and he “is
       not expected to recover.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A).
              Miller failed to show that his obesity, pre-diabetes, and hy-
       pertension substantially diminished his ability to provide self-care
       in prison. The record demonstrates that Miller has been able to
       take prescription medications and visit the chronic care clinic reg-
       ularly to manage his medical complications. So, the district court
       didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that Miller hadn’t
USCA11 Case: 22-12157     Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12157

       presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassion-
       ate release. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38.
               Even if Miller had made this showing, the district court
       didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that compassionate re-
       lease wasn’t warranted under the section 3553(a) factors. The dis-
       trict court considered Miller’s mitigating arguments regarding his
       health concerns, that he didn’t pose a danger to the community,
       and that the purposes of section 3553(a) already had been served.
       But the district court determined that, in light of the facts of the
       case, the factors didn’t warrant a sentence reduction. As was re-
       quired, the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors by
       specifically acknowledging the nature and circumstances of the of-
       fense and observing that numerous firearms and a large amount of
       marijuana were attributed to Miller. See United States v. Cook,
       998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court also found
       that releasing Miller early wouldn’t reflect the seriousness of his
       offenses or the needs to promote respect for the law, provide just
       punishment, or afford adequate deterrence.
              For these reasons, the district court didn’t abuse its discre-
       tion in denying Miller’s motion.
             AFFIRMED.