Court Opinion

ID: 9882329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 20:01:03.471129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:12.015270
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10233    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 10/05/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10233
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JACETA ANYA STREETER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00076-TJC-LLL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10233      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10233

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jaceta Streeter, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release
       under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as modified by § 603(b) of the First
       Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 519 (“First Step Act”),
       arguing that the court abused its discretion in its weighing of the
       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determining that no extraordinary
       and compelling circumstances warranted her release.
               We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
       Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses
       its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows im-
       proper procedures in making its determination, or makes clearly
       erroneous factual findings.” United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343,
       1345 (11th Cir. 2021).
               Generally, district courts do not have the authority to mod-
       ify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed, but they may
       do so within the limited circumstances provided by § 3582(c).
       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010).
       As amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act, § 3582(c) now pro-
       vides, in relevant part, that:
              [T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the
              [BOP], or upon motion of the defendant after the de-
              fendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights
USCA11 Case: 23-10233      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       23-10233               Opinion of the Court                         3

              to appeal a failure of the [BOP] 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 defend-
              ant’s facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the
              term of imprisonment . . . after considering the fac-
              tors set forth in section 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 pol-
              icy statements issued by the Sentencing Commis-
              sion . . . .
       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, under the First Step Act, a
       district court may reduce a term of imprisonment for “extraordi-
       nary and compelling reasons,” consistent with relevant Sentencing
       Commission policy statements, but only after considering the fac-
       tors set forth in § 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable. 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237
       (11th Cir. 2021). “Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court must find that
       all necessary conditions are satisfied before it grants a reduction.”
       Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237. The absence of any one of the necessary
       conditions—support in the § 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. In
       other words, a court may not grant a defendant’s motion for com-
       passionate release unless the § 3553(a) factors favor it. See id. at
       1237. Among other factors, § 3553(a) lists the nature and circum-
       stances of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defend-
       ant; the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
USCA11 Case: 23-10233      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10233

       respect for the law, and provide just punishment; and the need to
       afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public
       from the defendant, and provide the defendant with necessary
       training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a)(1)-(2). If a defendant fails to show that the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors justify a sentence reduction, the court may end its analysis
       there. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348. Additionally, nothing on the face
       of § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a district court to conduct the compas-
       sionate release analysis in any particular order. Tinker, 14 F.4th at
       1240.
               Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides the ap-
       plicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(1)(A). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
       We have previously held that “a district court cannot grant a mo-
       tion for reduction if it would be inconsistent with the [Sentencing]
       Commission’s policy statement defining ‘extraordinary and com-
       pelling reasons.’” United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th
       Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 583 (2021). The application notes to
       U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 list four categories of extraordinary and compel-
       ling reasons: (A) the defendant’s medical condition; (B) the defend-
       ant’s age; (C) the defendant’s family circumstances; and (D) “Other
       Reasons.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)-(D)). Subsection
       D serves as a catch-all provision, providing that a prisoner may be
       eligible for relief if, “[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau
       of Prisons, there exists in the defendant’s case an extraordinary and
       compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons
       described in subdivisions (A) through (C).” Id., comment. (n.1(D)).
       The defendant’s own medical condition qualifies as an
USCA11 Case: 23-10233      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       23-10233                Opinion of the Court                          5

       extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release if
       he or she is “suffering from a serious mental or physical condi-
       tion . . . 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., com-
       ment. (n.1(A)). Moreover, the incapacitation of the caregiver of a
       defendant’s minor child also qualifies as an extraordinary and com-
       pelling reason for a sentence reduction. Id., comment. (n.1(C)(i)).
       While Application Note 1(C)(i) does not require the defendant to
       show the unavailability of another caregiver, the availability of one
       may inform the exercise of the district court’s discretion. See Har-
       ris, 989 F.3d at 911 (“Because [§ 3582(c)(1)(A)] speaks permissively
       and says that the district court ‘may’ reduce a defendant’s sentence
       after certain findings and considerations, the court’s decision is a
       discretionary one.”). Nevertheless, “[a] district court abuses its dis-
       cretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors
       that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an
       improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judg-
       ment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612
       F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omit-
       ted). When a district court considers the § 3553(a) factors, it need
       not explicitly discuss each of them or state on the record that it has
       explicitly considered each of them. United States v. Kuhlman, 711
       F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013).
USCA11 Case: 23-10233      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10233

              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its con-
       sideration of the relevant § 3553(a) factors, nor in its allocation of
       more weight to certain factors—namely the seriousness of
       Streeter’s offense, her extensive criminal history and evidence of
       her high risk of recidivism, and the need to promote respect for the
       law and afford adequate deterrence—over others. Tinker, 14 F.4th
       at 1237. While the court was not required to continue its analysis
       upon determining that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor Streeter’s
       release, see Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348, it nevertheless additionally
       found that no extraordinary and compelling circumstances war-
       ranting her release were present because she did not show that
       J.W.’s caregivers were incapacitated, nor did she show that she was
       the only other available caregiver for him if they were. For these
       reasons, the district court properly denied Streeter’s motion for
       compassionate release. We therefore affirm.
              AFFIRMED.