Court Opinion

ID: 9364829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 14:01:00.90109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.666057
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12329    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12329
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       HECTOR CASTRO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 9:12-cr-80119-DMM-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12329      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12329

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Hector Castro, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s order denying his motions for compassionate
       release and seeking appointment of counsel. The government, in
       turn, moves for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing sched-
       ule. We grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance.
                                         I.
              Castro pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
       intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. For this
       crime, he received a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment.
               Several years after he was sentenced, Castro, proceeding pro
       se, filed a motion for compassionate release in the district court. He
       claimed that he was eligible for a sentence reduction because he
       suffered from underlying health conditions that put him at a
       greater risk of developing severe health consequences if he con-
       tracted COVID-19. Castro also requested that the court appoint
       counsel to assist him in requesting a sentence reduction.
              The district court denied Castro’s motion for compassionate
       release for two reasons. First, the court found that Castro failed to
       demonstrate that his medical conditions established “extraordinary
USCA11 Case: 22-12329         Document: 17-1        Date Filed: 01/20/2023         Page: 3 of 7

       22-12329                   Opinion of the Court                               3

       or compelling grounds” for a sentence reduction. Doc. 388. 1 Sec-
       ond, the court concluded that a sentence reduction was not war-
       ranted under the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a). 2 Regarding the § 3553(a) factors, the court focused on the
       “nature of [Castro’s] crime and the limited portion of time he [had]
       served” on his sentence. Id. The district court also denied Castro’s
       request for appointment of counsel.
               This is Castro’s appeal. After Castro filed his appellant’s
       brief, the government filed a motion for summary affirmance.
                                             II.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a

       1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
       2 Under § 3553(a), the district court is required to impose a sentence “suffi-
       cient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the stat-
       ute. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the seri-
       ousness of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punishment;
       deter criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal
       conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or vocational
       training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2). The
       court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the his-
       tory and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the
       applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing
       Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the
       need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
USCA11 Case: 22-12329         Document: 17-1        Date Filed: 01/20/2023         Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court                      22-12329

       matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
       appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d
       1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 3
              We review de novo whether a prisoner 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.
           We liberally construe pro se filings. Jones v. Fla. Parole
       Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
                                             III.
               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.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th
       Cir. 2015); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). As relevant for our purposes, a
       district court may reduce a prisoner’s term of imprisonment only
       if the court finds that three requirements are satisfied: (1) there are
       “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for granting a sentence re-
       duction; (2) “the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor” a reduction;
       and (3) awarding a sentence reduction “wouldn’t endanger any

       3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
       we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
       handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-12329      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-12329               Opinion of the Court                         5

       person or the community.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234,
       1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). If the dis-
       trict court finds that a movant failed to satisfy even one of these
       requirements, it cannot grant relief and need not analyze the re-
       maining requirements. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1347–48.
              Here, we agree with the government that summary affir-
       mance is appropriate. There is no substantial question that the dis-
       trict court acted within its discretion when it concluded that the
       § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction.
               On appeal, Castro argues that he was eligible for relief be-
       cause he demonstrated that there were extraordinary and compel-
       ling reasons for a sentence reduction. But he does not address the
       district court’s alternative basis for denying relief: its weighing of
       the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. When a district court sets forth
       multiple reasons for a decision and the appellant “fails to challenge
       properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court
       based its judgment,” he is deemed to have forfeited “any challenge
       of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be af-
       firmed.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680
       (11th Cir. 2014); see United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873
       (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Because the district court relied on its
       weighing of the § 3553(a) factors as one of two alternative grounds
       for denying the motion for compassionate release and Castro failed
       to challenge this ground on appeal, the decision of the district court
       is due to be affirmed. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.
USCA11 Case: 22-12329        Document: 17-1        Date Filed: 01/20/2023        Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12329

               But even assuming that Castro had challenged the district
       court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, we cannot say that the
       district court abused its discretion in concluding that the factors did
       not support a reduction. After all, “[t]he weight given to any spe-
       cific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the
       district court.” United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th
       Cir. 2016). We thus affirm the district court’s order denying Cas-
       tro’s motion for compassionate release. 4
              Castro also argues on appeal that the district court erred in
       denying his motion for appointment of counsel. But a defendant
       has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in proceedings
       under § 3582(c) in which he seeks a sentence reduction. United
       States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 794–95 (11th Cir. 2009). Instead, “the
       decision to appoint an attorney is left to the discretion of the district
       court.” Id. And we cannot say that the district court abused its dis-
       cretion in denying his motion. See id.
             Accordingly, because the government’s position is clearly
       correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the government’s motion
       for summary affirmance and DENY its motion to stay the briefing

       4 Given this determination, we need not address Castro’s argument that the
       district court erred in concluding that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary
       and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–
       38.
USCA11 Case: 22-12329        Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 01/20/2023        Page: 7 of 7

       22-12329                  Opinion of the Court                               7

       schedule as moot. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162; see
       also 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c). 5

       5 Also pending before the Court is Castro’s motion seeking leave to file a sup-
       plemental brief, which he attached to this motion. The motion is GRANTED.
       We have considered his supplemental brief. In the supplemental brief, Castro
       also requests that we appoint counsel to assist him on appeal. We deny this
       request.