Court Opinion

ID: 9396182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 19:00:48.378031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.562309
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12980    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 05/19/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12980
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JACOBO FELICIANO-FRANCISCO,
       a.k.a. Uriel Castillo-Ochoa,
       a.k.a. Kiko,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
USCA11 Case: 22-12980         Document: 20-1         Date Filed: 05/19/2023          Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        22-12980

                        for the Northern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00032-RH-EMT-1
                             ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The district court denied Jacobo Feliciano-Francisco’s mo-
       tion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Fe-
       liciano-Francisco then filed with the district court a notice of inter-
       vening authority, which we construe as a motion for reconsidera-
       tion. The district court entered an order explaining why the new
       authority didn’t affect its original order and stating that “no action
       will be taken.” Feliciano-Francisco appeals that second order. In
       particular, he argues that his intervening authority—Concepcion v.
       United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022)—overruled United States v. Bry-
       ant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021). The government responds that
       Bryant isn’t relevant to the district court’s original order. We agree
       and summarily affirm. 1
               Before it may grant a reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a dis-
       trict court must find that three necessary conditions are satisfied:

       1 We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discre-
       tion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). 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).
USCA11 Case: 22-12980     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-12980               Opinion of the Court                        3

       (1) “support in the § 3553(a) factors,” (2) “extraordinary and com-
       pelling reasons,” and (3) “adherence to § 1B1.13’s policy state-
       ment.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir.
       2021). The absence of any single condition forecloses a sentence
       reduction.
              Here, the district court’s original order focused on the first
       of these conditions. Reconsidering the § 3553(a) factors, the court
       decided “as a matter of discretion that Mr. Feliciano’s sentence
       should not be reduced at this time.”
              The district court refrained from deciding the second or
       third conditions. The court mentioned that Bryant was unfavora-
       ble to Feliciano-Francisco on the third, “policy statement” condi-
       tion, but it expressed the view that future events might overturn or
       override Bryant. Importantly, though, rather than stay the pro-
       ceeding pending any such developments, the court proceeded to
       deny relief because, in its words, even if Feliciano-Francisco satis-
       fied the third condition, “the motion to reduce this sentence would
       be denied anyway.”
               Feliciano-Francisco’s argument in his intervening-authority
       filing didn’t challenge the district court’s determination that the
       first condition wasn’t satisfied. Instead, he argued that Concepcion
       overruled Bryant. But arguments about the third condition are ir-
       relevant to the district court’s decision, which, by its terms, was
       based on the first condition.
             The district court, therefore, correctly denied the motion for
       reconsideration. Because the government’s position on appeal is
USCA11 Case: 22-12980         Document: 20-1          Date Filed: 05/19/2023          Page: 4 of 4

       4                          Opinion of the Court                         22-12980

       correct as a matter of law, its motion for summary affirmance is
       GRANTED.
               AFFIRMED. 2

       2 We don’t understand Feliciano-Francisco to have appealed the district court’s

       original order. To the extent he did, his appeal was untimely. Even assuming
       the district court would have granted an extension for “excusable neglect or
       good cause,” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), Feliciano-Francisco had 44 days to appeal.
       See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that crim-
       inal appeal timelines apply to § 3582(c) motions); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
       He noticed this appeal more than 70 days after the original order. Motions
       for reconsideration like his—i.e., those filed after 14 days, even if before 44
       days—do not toll this time period. United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230
       (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).