Court Opinion

ID: 9365052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 22:00:24.173151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.978818
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13721    Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 1 of 14

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-13721
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        ALLAN D. BRADFORD,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14047-JEM-3
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13721      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 2 of 14

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13721

        Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Allan Demetrius Bradford, a federal prisoner serving a
        270-month total sentence for robbery-related offenses, appeals the
        order of the United States District Court for the Southern District
        of Florida denying his motion for compassionate release under 18
        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the District Court erred by
        holding that it did not have discretion to consider his arguments
        for “Other Reasons” to grant a motion for compassionate release
        under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). For the first time on appeal,
        he also claims that, if the District Court lacks such discretion under
        § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D)—as we held in United States v. Bryant, 996
        F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021)—then 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) is an unconsti-
        tutional delegation of authority to the Sentencing Commission,
        and § 1B1.13 is an invalid sub-delegation from the Sentencing Com-
        mission to the Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”) to determine the
        scope of § 1B1.13 cmt n.1(D). He further argues the Court failed
        to adequately consider his arguments under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
        factors. After careful review, we affirm.
                                         I.
               On July 8, 2013, law enforcement officers arrested several
        individuals, including Bradford, who had coordinated two bank
        robberies that morning in St. Lucie County, Florida. On December
        5, 2013, a federal grand jury returned a third superseding
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 01/20/2023      Page: 3 of 14

        21-13721               Opinion of the Court                          3

        indictment related to the robberies. The superseding indictment
        charged Bradford with:
              (1) one count of conspiracy beginning in June and
              continuing through July 8, 2013, to interfere with
              commerce by threats or violence in St. Lucie County
              and Palm Beach County, Florida (“Count 1”), 18
              U.S.C. § 1951(a);
              (2) two counts of interfering with commerce by
              threats or violence on July 8, 2013, at two PNC banks
              in St. Lucie County, Florida, one in Ft. Pierce (“Count
              4”) and one in Port St. Lucie (“Count 6”), 18 U.S.C.
              § 1951(a), and 2;
              (3) two counts of using, carrying, and possessing a
              firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence at the
              PNC banks referred to in Counts 4 and 6 (“Counts 5
              and 7”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (C)(i), and 2; and
              (4) one count of possession of a firearm as a felon on
              July 8, 2013 (“Count 9”), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and 2.
              The indictment concerned four bank robberies that Brad-
        ford and his co-conspirators (and co-defendants) committed be-
        tween June 8, 2013, and July 8, 2013, while engaged in the Count 1
        conspiracy. The bank robberies were committed at gunpoint.
                Pursuant to a plea agreement, Bradford pled guilty to all
        counts charged against him in the indictment. In the plea agree-
        ment, the Government agreed to recommend a sentence within
        the guideline sentence range, to move for an acceptance of respon-
        sibility adjustment to the guideline offense level under U.S.S.G.
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 4 of 14

        4                      Opinion of the Court                21-13721

        § 3E1.1(a), and to move for an adjustment under § 3E1.1(b) if the
        offense level was determined to be 16 or greater.
               In the stipulated facts supporting his guilty plea, Bradford
        stipulated that the Government could prove the allegations against
        him in the indictment. The stipulations also indicate that Bradford
        directly participated in armed bank robberies on June 20, 2013, July
        1, 2013, and July 8, 2013 (the Count 4 robbery), and that he con-
        spired with others to commit the other bank robbery on July 8,
        2013 (the Count 6 robbery). The stipulations further indicate he
        brandished a weapon during the Count 4 robbery, and that he was
        a convicted felon during that time.
                The presentence investigation report (the “PSR”) set forth
        facts consistent with the stipulated facts supporting Bradford’s
        guilty plea. The PSR found that Bradford conspired to commit four
        bank robberies. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d), the PSR treated the
        conviction on the Count 1 conspiracy as if Bradford had been con-
        victed on a separate count for each of the four robberies in which
        he participated as a conspirator. The PSR then grouped Count 4
        and Count 6—the § 1951(a) robbery counts—with the Count 1 con-
        spiracy offense conduct involving each of the robberies under
        § 3D1.2 cmt. n.4. Under § 3D1.2(c), Count 9 for felon in possession
        of a firearm was then grouped with Count 4 and the conspiracy
        offense for that robbery because Bradford possessed the firearm
        during the robbery.
               As to Counts 5 and 7 for brandishing a firearm in furtherance
        of a crime of violence—which were associated with the robberies
USCA11 Case: 21-13721      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 5 of 14

        21-13721               Opinion of the Court                        5

        under Counts 4 and 6, respectively—the PSR did not group those
        counts and the guideline sentence was the minimum term of im-
        prisonment required by statute under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b). Under
        § 2K2.4 cmt. n.4, the PSR did not apply the specific offense charac-
        teristics for possession, brandishing, use, or discharge of firearms
        to the robberies under Counts 4 and 6.
               The PSR separately calculated the offense level for each of
        the four robberies, all of which had a base offense level of 20 under
        U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a). For the first and second robberies, the PSR
        added 2 points under § 2B3.1(b)(1), 5 points under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C)
        because a firearm was brandished, and 1 point under
        § 2B3.1(b)(7)(B) because between $10,000 and $50,000 was taken.
        The total offense level was 28 for the first and second groups. For
        the third robbery, the PSR only added 2 points under § 2B3.1(b)(1).
        For the fourth robbery, the PSR added 2 points under § 2B3.1(b)(1)
        and 1 point under § 2B3.1(b)(7)(B). Following a multiple count ad-
        justment, the PSR found that Bradford’s combined adjusted offense
        level was 31. The PSR then subtracted three total points for ac-
        ceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a) and § 3E1.1(b), resulting
        in a total offense level of 28.
               The PSR also discussed Bradford’s cumulative criminal his-
        tory and identified two prior convictions for grand theft of a motor
        vehicle, one conviction for driving with no valid driver’s license
        causing death, one conviction of burglary of a conveyance, one
        conviction for resisting an officer without violence, and one con-
        viction of driving without a valid driver’s license. The PSR placed
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 6 of 14

        6                      Opinion of the Court               21-13721

        him in criminal history category III. The PSR also noted that, apart
        from his convictions, Bradford had previously been arrested for
        criminal mischief; battery; and—related to the instant offense—
        robbery with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and aggra-
        vated assault with a deadly weapon.
               Based on a total offense level of 28 and a criminal history
        category of III, the PSR found that Bradford’s guideline range was
        97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. It noted that, as to Count 5, an
        84-month term of imprisonment had to run consecutively to any
        other prison term under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and as to
        Count 7, a 300-month term of imprisonment had to run consecu-
        tively to any other term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
        § 924(c)(1)(C)(i).
               At sentencing, the District Court adopted the PSR’s guide-
        lines calculations and noted that Bradford and the Government
        agreed to recommend to the Court that he receive a total sentence
        at the low end of the guideline sentence range. The Court noted
        that, based on the mandatory terms of imprisonment applicable to
        Counts 5 and 7, Bradford’s total sentence would be 481 to 505
        months’ imprisonment. The Court ultimately sentenced Bradford
        at the bottom of the sentencing guideline range to a total of 481
        months’ imprisonment. The sentence consisted of 97 months for
        Counts 1, 4, 6, and 9, respectively, set to run concurrently; a con-
        secutive term of 84 months for Count 5; and a consecutive term of
        300 months for Count 7, followed by 5 years of supervised release.
        The court also ordered Bradford to pay $36,662.03 in restitution.
USCA11 Case: 21-13721      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023      Page: 7 of 14

        21-13721                Opinion of the Court                         7

               The Court entered a final judgment on August 27, 2014.
        Bradford did not appeal. The Government later moved the District
        Court to reduce Bradford’s total sentence based on his substantial
        assistance to authorities under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The Gov-
        ernment recommended that his 481-month total sentence be re-
        duced by 181 months to a total sentence of 300 months’ imprison-
        ment. The District Court granted the motion and reduced his total
        sentence to 270 months, entering an amended judgment to this ef-
        fect on June 2, 2015.
               Between 2016 and 2018, Bradford sought post-conviction re-
        lief twice. In 2016, Bradford moved for relief under 28 U.S.C.
        § 2255, which the District Court denied with prejudice. In 2018, he
        applied to this Court for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion
        without success.
               On January 5, 2021, Bradford moved pro se for compassion-
        ate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). He based his motion in
        part on claimed medical conditions and an increased risk of con-
        tracting COVID-19. He also asserted that he needed to take care
        of a family member who would be at an increased risk of COVID-
        19. He further argued that he was unconstitutionally incarcerated
        under United States v. Eason, 953 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2020) and
        § 403 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194
        (2018) as it relates to consecutive sentences for § 924(c) convictions.
              The Government opposed Bradford’s motion. The Govern-
        ment first claimed that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 provides the exclusive list
        of reasons that a court can grant compassionate release. The
USCA11 Case: 21-13721      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 8 of 14

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13721

        Government then argued that Bradford’s medical conditions and
        any risk of COVID-19 did not fall within § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A),
        which outlines what medical conditions can qualify as a reason to
        grant compassionate release. The Government also claimed that
        Bradford’s family circumstances did not qualify under § 1B1.13
        cmt. n.1(C), which covers the family circumstances that qualify as
        a reason to grant compassionate release. The Government addi-
        tionally argued that Bradford’s constitutional challenges did not fall
        within § 1B1.13’s list of reasons to grant compassionate release. Al-
        ternatively, the Government asserted that, based on his criminal
        history, Bradford was a danger to the community, and that the
        § 3553(a) factors weighed against his release.
               Bradford filed a counseled reply to the Government’s oppo-
        sition to his motion. Bradford reiterated his claims related to
        COVID-19 and fleshed out a claim that sentencing disparities cre-
        ated by § 403 of the First Step Act could qualify as an extraordinary
        and compelling circumstance for compassionate release under 18
        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(1)(A).
               The District Court denied Bradford’s motion in an order en-
        tered on October 14, 2021. The District Court first explained that
        any reason to grant compassionate release must fall within the rea-
        sons enumerated in § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C) as required by United
        States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021). There, we held
        that district courts lack discretion to develop reasons to grant com-
        passionate release under § 1B1.13’s catch-all provision, § 1B1.13
        cmt. n.1(D). Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1248, 1263–65.
USCA11 Case: 21-13721       Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023      Page: 9 of 14

        21-13721                Opinion of the Court                          9

                The Court then concluded that Bradford’s medical condi-
        tions did not qualify under § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). The Court added
        that it could not consider COVID-19 in conjunction with medical
        conditions that do not qualify under § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A) because
        under Bryant, it lacked the discretion to develop reasons to grant
        compassionate release beyond those enumerated in § 1B1.13 cmt.
        n.1(A)–(C). The Court also found that Bradford’s family circum-
        stances did not qualify under § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(C). As to Bradford’s
        constitutional claims, it found that such claims fell outside
        § 1B1.13. In addition, the Court alternatively found that Bradford’s
        criminal history showed he would pose a danger to the community
        and that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against his release.
                Bradford now appeals. He argues that the District Court
        erred by finding that it could not consider reasons to grant compas-
        sionate release beyond those listed in § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C). He
        makes this claim by arguing that Bryant was wrongly decided and
        that it created separation-of-powers problems the panel did not ad-
        dress. He also argues that the District Court failed to adequately
        consider the § 3553(a) factors in reaching its decision.
                                          II.
               We review a district court’s denial of an eligible movant’s
        request for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act for an abuse
        of discretion. United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1183 (11th Cir.
        2021). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its deci-
        sion on an incorrect legal standard or findings of fact that are clearly
USCA11 Case: 21-13721        Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023       Page: 10 of 14

        10                        Opinion of the Court                  21-13721

        erroneous. Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
        2015).
               A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de-
        fendant’s sentence, and it may do so only when authorized by a
        statute or rule. United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th
        Cir. 2015). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) governs when a court may modify
        a term of imprisonment after it has been imposed.
                 In the context of compassionate release, the statute pro-
        vides:
                 [T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bu-
                 reau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant af-
                 ter the defendant has fully exhausted all administra-
                 tive 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 . . . af-
                 ter considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] sec-
                 tion 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it
                 finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons
                 warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction
                 is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
                 by the Sentencing Commission.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A).
               The district court need not conduct the compassionate re-
        lease analysis in any particular order. United States v. Tinker,
        14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court may reduce a
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 11 of 14

        21-13721               Opinion of the Court                        11

        term of imprisonment if: (1) the § 3553(a) factors favor doing so, (2)
        there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for doing so, and
        (3) the reduction would not endanger any person or the commu-
        nity. Id. All these conditions are necessary, so if the court finds
        against the defendant on one of them, it cannot grant a sentence
        reduction. Id. at 1238.
               A district court must also sufficiently explain its decision to
        grant or deny a motion for compassionate release to allow mean-
        ingful appellate review. See Cook, 998 F.3d at 1184 (“A district
        court need not exhaustively analyze every factor in its order, but it
        must provide enough analysis that meaningful appellate review of
        the factors’ application can take place.” (internal quotation marks
        omitted)). The district court’s consideration of the applicable
        § 3553(a) factors is sufficient “as long as the record demonstrates
        that the pertinent factors were taken into account.” Id. at 1185
        (quoting United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir.
        1997)). And if a district court properly found either that (i) no ex-
        traordinary and compelling circumstances existed, or (ii) the de-
        fendant was a danger to the public, analysis of the § 3553(a) factors
        is unnecessary. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347–48 (11th
        Cir. 2021).
               In addition, we review a district court’s determination of its
        authority to modify a term of imprisonment de novo. United
        States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). We also re-
        view interpretations of the sentencing guidelines de novo. Id. Sec-
        tion 3582(c)(1)(A) requires that any sentence reduction be
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 12 of 14

        12                     Opinion of the Court                21-13721

        “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sen-
        tencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 28 U.S.C. § 994(t)
        directs the Sentencing Commission to “describe what should be
        considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence re-
        duction” under § 3582(c)(1)(A). It also clarifies that “[r]ehabilita-
        tion of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary
        and compelling reason.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t).
                Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides the ap-
        plicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(1)(A). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
        The application notes to § 1B1.13 list four categories of extraordi-
        nary and compelling reasons: (A) the defendant’s medical condi-
        tion, (B) his age, (C) his family circumstances, and (D) “an extraor-
        dinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with,
        the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C).” Id. cmt.
        n.1(A)–(D). Subsection D serves as a catch-all provision. It pro-
        vides that the Director of the BOP determines whether “there ex-
        ists in the defendant’s case an extraordinary and compelling rea-
        son.” Id. cmt. n.1(D).
               In Bryant, we held that § 1B1.13 was applicable to all mo-
        tions for compassionate release filed under § 3582(c)(1)(A), includ-
        ing those filed by prisoners, and, thus, a district court may not re-
        duce a sentence unless a reduction would be consistent with
        § 1B1.13’s definition of extraordinary and compelling reasons. Bry-
        ant, 996 F.3d at 1252–62. We further concluded that the catch-all
        provision in the commentary to § 1B1.13 did not give district courts
        discretion to develop other reasons than those listed in § 1B1.13
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 13 of 14

        21-13721               Opinion of the Court                        13

        that might justify a reduction in a defendant’s sentence. Id. at 1248,
        1263, 1265.
               Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion. It ade-
        quately explained its decision not to grant Bradford’s motion for
        compassionate release by weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
        The Court made an explicit finding that the § 3553(a) factors
        weighed against granting compassionate release. The Court also
        emphasized Bradford’s criminal history and the need to promote
        specific deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C).
               Bryant also forecloses Bradford’s arguments that the District
        Court should have considered reasons beyond those listed in
        § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C). Under this Court’s prior-panel precedent
        rule, “a prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels
        unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abro-
        gation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.”
        United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). We
        have also emphasized that “a prior panel precedent cannot be cir-
        cumvented or ignored on the basis of arguments not made to or
        considered by the prior panel.” Tippitt v. Reliance Standard Life
        Ins. Co., 457 F.3d 1227, 1234 (11th Cir. 2006). This Court has thus
        categorically rejected an overlooked reason or argument exception
        to the prior panel precedent rule. In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794
        (11th Cir. 2015); Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1301–04 (11th
        Cir. 2001).
              So, Bradford’s arguments that the District Court should
        have considered reasons beyond those listed in § 1B1.13 cmt.
USCA11 Case: 21-13721     Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 14 of 14

        14                     Opinion of the Court                21-13721

        n.1(A)–(C) are foreclosed. He is essentially arguing that we should
        depart from Bryant because it was wrong on its own terms and be-
        cause of separation-of-powers problems the panel did not address.
        But we cannot overrule Bryant for reasons that were not raised in
        that case. See Tippitt, 457 F.3d at 1234; In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d at
        794.
                                       * * *
              For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.