Court Opinion

ID: 9369751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 17:00:39.501734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.892081
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11644    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11644
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       DONALD M. REYNOLDS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cr-00081-DHB-BKE-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11644      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11644

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Donald Reynolds, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
       court’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release un-
       der 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), alleging the district court ignored his
       sentencing-disparity argument. Specifically, Reynolds contends
       that the district court abused its discretion by not addressing his
       argument about the “disparity” between his sentence and that of
       his codefendant. After careful consideration, we affirm.
               We review the district court’s denial of a Sec-
       tion 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. See 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 the determination, or makes findings
       of fact that are clearly erroneous. United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d
       1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015).
               District courts have discretion to reduce a criminal defend-
       ant’s sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Sentencing Commission’s policy
       statement governing compassionate release enumerates those rea-
       sons that justify relief. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243,
       1251−52 (11th Cir. 2021); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii). The dis-
       trict court must also determine whether “the § 3553(a) sentencing
       factors favor” reducing the defendant’s sentence. United States v.
USCA11 Case: 22-11644      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-11644                Opinion of the Court                         3

       Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). “Because all three con-
       ditions— i.e., support in § 3553(a) factors, extraordinary and com-
       pelling reasons, and adherence to the § 1B1.13’s policy statement—
       are necessary, the absence of even one would foreclose a sentence
       reduction.” Id. at 1237–38.
              The weight given to any of the Section 3553(a) factors is
       “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United
       States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016); accord
       United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013). The
       court need not state that it has explicitly considered each of the Sec-
       tion 3553(a) factors or discuss each factor. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at
       1326. “Instead, an acknowledgment by the district court that it con-
       sidered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is suffi-
       cient.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (internal citation omitted).
               In effect, Reynolds’s argument is that the district court
       abused its discretion because it did not specifically address one of
       the Section 3553(a) factors—the need to avoid unwarranted sen-
       tencing disparities—when it denied his motion for compassionate
       release. That the district court did not specifically discuss that fac-
       tor is not error. Rather, the court expressly discussed several Sec-
       tion 3553(a) factors, concluding they weighed heavily against re-
       leasing Reynolds sixteen years early. Such discussion is sufficient
       “to satisfy the reviewing court of the fact that [the district court]
       has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
       making its decision.” Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1326. Because Reyn-
       olds’s challenge to the district court’s evaluation of the Section
USCA11 Case: 22-11644     Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court               22-11644

       3553(a) factors fails, his challenge to the denial of his motion for
       compassion release does too. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38. The
       district court, thus, did not abuse its discretion by denying Reyn-
       olds’s motion for compassionate release.
             The district court is AFFIRMED.