Court Opinion

ID: 9381204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 14:00:39.323476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.735376
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13587   Document: 15-1    Date Filed: 03/22/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13587
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       QUINCETTA YVONNE CARGILL,
       a.k.a. Queen,
       a.k.a. Tonya,
       a.k.a. Angela Scott,
       a.k.a. Antela Scott,
       a.k.a. QuincetTucker,
       a.k.a. Quincetta Tucker,
USCA11 Case: 22-13587      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-13587

                                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00356-RDP-JHE-1
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Quincetta Cargill, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). However, in her 80-page brief on appeal,
       she addresses only issues related to the validity of her underlying
       convictions; she does not address the district court’s denial of
       compassionate release. The government in turn moves for
       summary affirmance of the district court’s order and to stay the
       briefing schedule, arguing that Cargill abandoned any challenge to
       the district court’s denial of her § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion by not
       briefing it on appeal. In reply, Cargill states that although her brief
       does not address the motion for compassionate release, she listed
       issues with the district court’s denial in her notice of appeal. She
       then reiterates some of the issues that she contends undermine the
       validity of her conviction.
USCA11 Case: 22-13587         Document: 15-1         Date Filed: 03/22/2023         Page: 3 of 4

       22-13587                   Opinion of the Court                                3

              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, 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). 1
               Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
       counseled pleadings and, therefore, are liberally construed.
       Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
       Nonetheless, “[w]hile we read briefs filed by pro se litigants
       liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are
       deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
       Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, we do not
       address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply
       brief.” Id. Accordingly, by failing to raise the issues related to the
       district court’s denial of Cargill’s motion for compassionate release
       in her initial brief, Cargill abandoned any challenge to the trial
       court’s denial of her motion. 2

       1 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)
       (holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued before
       September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).
       2 We note that even if we were to consider the “issues” referenced by Cargill
       in her notice of appeal, summary affirmance would still be appropriate. Cargill
       did not establish the existence of an extraordinary and compelling reason for
       compassionate release as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically,
       Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 sets forth four circumstances under
       which “extraordinary and compelling reasons exist”: (A) the defendant suffers
       from (i) “a terminal illness,” or (ii) a permanent health condition “that
USCA11 Case: 22-13587         Document: 15-1         Date Filed: 03/22/2023         Page: 4 of 4

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-13587

              Thus, because the government’s position is clearly correct
       as a matter of law, we GRANT the government’s motion for
       summary affirmance and DENY AS MOOT its motion to stay the
       briefing schedule. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.

       substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within
       the environment of a correctional facility from which he or she is not expected
       to recover”; (B) the defendant is “at least 65 years old,” “is experiencing a
       serious [age-related] deterioration in physical or mental health,” and “has
       served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment,
       whichever is less”; (C) the defendant’s assistance is needed in caring for the
       defendant’s minor child, spouse, or registered partner due to (i) “[t]he death
       or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child or minor
       children” or (ii) “[t]he incapacitation of the defendant’s spouse or registered
       partner”; and (D) there exist “other” extraordinary and compelling reasons
       “[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.” See U.S.S.G.
       § 1B1.13 cmt. (n.1 (A)–(D)). Cargill’s allegations in her notice of appeal that
       she was entitled to compassionate release based on the risk and spread of
       COVID-19, “fear of death due to contagion,” concerns over the COVID
       vaccine, as well as the ongoing war between Russia Ukraine, and her “growing
       fear of HATE RELATED CRIMES/DOMESTIC TERRORISM” do not satisfy
       any of the four extraordinary and compelling circumstances defined in
       U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying
       Cargill’s motion.