Court Opinion

ID: 9408042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 15:01:34.13843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.354917
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13204    Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13204
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        JOSHUA BLAKE WISE,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00300-WS-N-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13204           Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 07/11/2023         Page: 2 of 10

        2                            Opinion of the Court                       22-13204

        Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Joshua Wise, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
        district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its denial
        of Wise’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act. 1
        The government, in turn, moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely
        or, alternatively, for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing.
        After careful review, we deny the government’s motion to dismiss
        as untimely, grant its motion for summary affirmance, and deny as
        moot its motion to stay the briefing schedule.
                                        I.       Background
              In 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Wise on three counts
        of drug-related offenses. In 2018, he was sentenced to 84 months’
        imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release.
               In 2022, Wise filed a pro se motion for compassionate release
        under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Citing decisions from other
        circuits, he argued that the district court could consider “other
        factors” as extraordinary and compelling reasons for
        compassionate release under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. He asserted that
        his mental health issues, including ADHD, bipolar disorder, and
        severe anxiety, put him at greater risk of neurological and mental
        complications associated with a COVID-19 infection, which is

        1   Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”).
USCA11 Case: 22-13204      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 3 of 10

        22-13204               Opinion of the Court                         3

        more likely to occur in a prison environment. He also stated that
        he had been denied a particular drug treatment, which was
        recommended at sentencing, because of an error in his presentence
        investigation report (“PSI”) stating that he was “sober from meth
        since 2009.” Wise listed six non-medical issues that he felt were
        extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release:
        (1) his indictment was duplicitous because the three counts charged
        the same crime three times; (2) his federal sentence ran consecutive
        to his “discharged state sentence” because the district court “never
        expressly ordered it not to run concurrent” and his counsel did not
        raise the issue; (3) the district court applied the wrong base offense
        level in determining his sentence; (4) he substantially cooperated
        with the government; (5) his father was assaulted and battered by
        marshals during Wise’s period of undercover work for the
        government; and (6) the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had refused to
        credit him with time served despite the sentencing judge’s
        statement that he would be entitled to it. Finally, he argued that
        the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favored his release.
               On June 29, 2022, the district court denied the motion
        without ordering the government to respond. It found that Wise
        failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances
        because he did not assert that he had a terminal illness or that his
        medical conditions interfered with his ability to provide self-care in
        prison. The district court then found that his six non-medical
        reasons did not fall within the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy
        statement, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, so they could not support a finding
        of extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release.
USCA11 Case: 22-13204      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 4 of 10

        4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13204

        The court finally noted that, because Wise failed to establish that
        extraordinary and compelling reasons existed, it did not need to
        address either the § 3553(a) factors or relevant policy statements.
                Wise moved for reconsideration of the order, which he
        asserted was placed in the mail on July 22, 2022. He argued that
        the district court failed to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
        and improperly applied or ignored the rules governing
        compassionate release. He reasserted his contention that district
        courts have discretion to define “other reasons” under U.S.S.G. §
        1B1.13. He alleged that the court applied its personal opinion
        rather than the relevant facts and law. He also alleged that the
        district court had never approved a motion for compassionate
        release and asked that, if it had, the court provide him “the details
        of each recipient.” Finally, he repeated his arguments that his
        mental illness, his lack of drug abuse or mental health treatment in
        prison, and his other six non-medical issues constituted
        extraordinary and compelling circumstances.
               On August 9, 2022, the district court denied the motion,
        finding that Wise “relie[d] on vituperation and his personal
        rejection of the governing legal principles, [and] identifie[d] no
        arguable error in the [c]ourt’s analysis.”
               Wise filed a pro se notice of appeal, which he placed in the
        mail on September 16, 2022. Wise designated for appeal the district
        court’s August 9 denial of reconsideration. On appeal, Wise argues
        that the district court abused its discretion by ruling on his motion
        for compassionate release without the government’s opposition
USCA11 Case: 22-13204       Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023      Page: 5 of 10

        22-13204                Opinion of the Court                          5

        and ignoring his six extraordinary and compelling reasons, which
        he repeats here. As to the August 9 order, Wise argues that the
        district court’s order did not provide sufficient explanation to
        determine whether its ruling was based on the same grounds cited
        in its June order, and thus, to allow for meaningful appellate
        review. The remainder of his arguments focus on the merits of his
        motion for compassionate release and the district court’s denial of
        that motion.
                The government moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely
        and for lack of jurisdiction and moved for summary affirmance of
        the district court’s denial of Wise’s motions for compassionate
        release and reconsideration. It argues that the appeal is untimely
        as to both the district court’s order denying compassionate release
        and its order denying reconsideration, or alternatively, that
        summary affirmance is appropriate as a matter of law because the
        district court properly denied the motions. As to summary
        affirmance, the government first argues that the district court was
        not required to explain its decision adequately enough to allow for
        meaningful appellate review because that particular order was not
        a sentencing decision. It further argues that, regardless, the court
        did sufficiently explain its rational because it stated that Wise failed
        to identify any arguable error in the court’s analysis. The
        government also moves to stay the briefing schedule pending the
        resolution of its motion and requests that, should we deny its
        motion, its motion be used as its responsive brief.
USCA11 Case: 22-13204          Document: 17-1          Date Filed: 07/11/2023          Page: 6 of 10

        6                           Opinion of the Court                        22-13204

               We granted the government’s motion to dismiss with
        respect to the district court’s June 29 order denying compassionate
        release. As to the district court’s August 9 order denying
        reconsideration, we remanded the case to the district court for the
        limited purpose of determining whether Wise had shown
        excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the
        appeal period. We deferred ruling on the government’s motion to
        dismiss the appeal as to the August 9 order and its alternative
        motion for summary affirmance pending the limited remand.
        Subsequently, the district court issued an order finding good cause
        for the late filing, extending the time for filing a notice of appeal,
        and deeming timely the appeal as to the denial of reconsideration.
                                        II.      Discussion
               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). 2
               We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for
        abuse of discretion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356
        (11th Cir. 2004). A district court abuses its discretion when it
        applies an incorrect legal standard or makes a clear error of

        2 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (holding that

        decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to the close of business on
        September 30, 1981, are binding in the Eleventh Circuit).
USCA11 Case: 22-13204      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023      Page: 7 of 10

        22-13204               Opinion of the Court                          7

        judgment. Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
        2015).
               Although motions for reconsideration of a district court
        order in a criminal action are not expressly authorized by the
        Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, both “the Supreme Court
        and this Court have permitted motions for reconsideration in
        criminal cases . . . .” United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1199
        (11th Cir. 2010).
               “[T]here must be enough, in the record or the court’s order,
        to allow for meaningful appellate review” of a district court’s
        sentencing decision. United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th
        Cir. 2017). When a court fails to explain its sentencing decision
        adequately enough to allow for meaningful appellate review, it
        abuses its discretion. Id. “This principle applies not only when a
        court imposes a sentence, but also when it determines whether or
        not to reduce a defendant’s sentence.” Id.
              District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term
        of imprisonment but may do so within § 3582(c)’s provisions.
        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th
        Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). Section 3582(c)
        provides that:
               [t]he court . . . upon motion of the defendant after the
               defendant . . . may reduce the term of
               imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set
               forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
               applicable, if it finds that
USCA11 Case: 22-13204      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 8 of 10

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13204

                      (i) extraordinary and compelling reasons
                      warrant such a reduction . . .
                      and that such a reduction is consistent with
                      applicable policy statements issued by the
                      Sentencing Commission . . . .
        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
               Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides the
        applicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(1)(A). The application
        notes to § 1B1.13 list four categories of extraordinary and
        compelling reasons: (A) the defendant’s medical condition, (B) his
        age, (C) his family circumstances, and (D) other reasons. Id.,
        comment. n.1(A)–(D). The defendant’s medical condition qualifies
        as an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate
        release if he is “suffering from a serious physical or medical
        condition” that “substantially diminishes the ability of the
        defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a
        correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to
        recover.” Id., comment. n.1(A). In addition to determining that
        extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction, §
        1B1.13 states that the district court must also determine that the
        defendant is not a danger to the safety of others or the community,
        as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Id. § 1B1.13(2).
                Notably, in Bryant, we held that, following the enactment of
        the First Step Act, § 1B1.13 continued to constrain a district court’s
        ability to evaluate whether extraordinary and compelling reasons
        were present and that “Application Note 1(D) does not grant
USCA11 Case: 22-13204       Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023      Page: 9 of 10

        22-13204                Opinion of the Court                          9

        discretion to courts to develop ‘other reasons’ that might justify a
        reduction in a defendant’s sentence.” 996 F.3d at 1248.
               “Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court must find that all necessary
        conditions are satisfied before it grants a reduction.” United States
        v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the
        absence of any one of the necessary conditions—support in the 18
        U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, extraordinary and compelling reasons, and
        adherence to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13’s policy statement—forecloses a
        sentence reduction. Id. at 1237–38. Additionally, “nothing on the
        face of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a court to conduct the
        compassionate-release analysis in any particular order.” Id. at 1237.
               Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a criminal
        defendant must file a notice of appeal in the district court within 14
        days after the entry of the order being appealed, but the district
        court may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal not
        to exceed 30 days upon a finding of excusable neglect or good
        cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), 4(b)(4). Here, as an initial matter,
        the district court extended the time for filing a notice of appeal.
        Accordingly, Wise’s notice of appeal is timely as to the order
        denying his motion for reconsideration.
               As to summary affirmance, the government’s position is
        clearly right as a matter of law. First, the district court sufficiently
        explained its decision to deny the motion to reconsider. The court
        correctly stated that Wise had not identified any arguable error in
        the court’s prior analysis. Second, it was not permitted to consider
        “other reasons” and was not required to analyze the § 3553(a)
USCA11 Case: 22-13204      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 10 of 10

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13204

        factors once it determined that Wise had not presented
        extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See Bryant, 996 F. 3d
        at 1248; Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38, 1240. Moreover, contrary to
        Wise’s assertions, there is nothing to indicate that the district court
        abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in
        denying his motion for compassionate release, and the record is
        sufficient for meaningful appellate review. Johnson, 877 F.3d at 997.
                Wise raises no other discernable arguments challenging the
        district court’s denial of reconsideration, so he has abandoned all
        other arguments. See United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 713 (11th
        Cir. 2010) (noting the “long standing rule that issues and
        contentions not raised in the initial brief are deemed abandoned”).
        Thus, the government is clearly right as a matter of law. Groendyke,
        406 F.2d at 1161–62.
                                   III.   Conclusion
              Accordingly, we DENY the government’s motion to dismiss
        as untimely, GRANT its motion for summary affirmance, and
        DENY as moot its motion to stay the briefing schedule and request
        to construe its motion as its brief.