USA v. Khalif Edwards

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13518
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KHALIF EDWARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00352-ELR-AJB-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13518 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13518
Before ROSENBAUM, J ILL PRYOR , and G RANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Khalif Edwards, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that we lack jurisdiction
to hear his appeal because the district court failed to consider one
of his arguments below, which he asserts makes the denial a non-
final order. He also moves us to dismiss his appeal for the same
reason. In the alternative, Edwards argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion. The government, in
turn, moves for summary affirmance.
We review our own appellate jurisdiction de novo. United
States v. Cody, 998 F.3d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 2021). Generally, we
have jurisdiction to review only “final decisions of the district
courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court’s order here
“end[ed] the litigation on the merits and [left] nothing for the court
to do but execute the judgment,” it was a final order. See Sabal Trail
Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake Cnty., 947 F.3d 1362,
1370 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted). We therefore have
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
We review a district court’s determination about a
defendant’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c) de
novo. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021).
And we review a district court’s ruling on an eligible defendant’s
motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-13518 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-13518 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
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce
a prisoner’s term of imprisonment “after considering the factors set
forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it
finds that,” as relevant here, “extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction” and “that such a reduction is consistent
with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” The applicable Sentencing Commission policy
statement is set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.13. Bryant,
996 F.3d at 1248. The application notes to § 1B1.13 establish four
categories of circumstances in which “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction exist: (1) qualifying
medical conditions, (2) advanced age, (3) family circumstances, and
(4) other circumstances in the defendant’s case that are determined
by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to be extraordinary and
compelling. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. 1.
To grant a motion for compassionate release under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must first find that all three of the
statutory prerequisites for relief are met: extraordinary and
1 In our en banc decision in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th
Cir. 1981), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth
Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-13518 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13518
compelling reasons justifying release, consistency with § 1B1.13,
and support in the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v.
Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). Because all three
conditions are necessary, “the absence of even one would foreclose
a sentence reduction.” Id. at 1238. The movant bears the burden
of proving that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582.
Cf. United States v. Green, 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014)
(discussing the defendant’s burden under § 3582(c)(2)).
In his motion, Edwards argued that the First Step Act
expanded the authority of district courts to reduce sentences under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) to encompass circumstances beyond those
described in the Guidelines. Specifically, he argues that a
compelling and extraordinary reason exists where the Bureau of
Prisons fails to account for a district court’s intention that the
sentence imposed would run concurrent to any sentence imposed
in a state case.
Even assuming that the district court did not consider this
argument, such an error would be harmless because this argument
is squarely foreclosed by our precedent. In Bryant, we considered
whether § 1B1.13 remained an “applicable policy statement[]”
under § 3582(c)(1)(A) after the First Step Act amended the statute
to allow defendants to file for compassionate release, and whether
the statutory amendment meant that district courts—not just the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons—were authorized to determine
that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release existed
beyond those specifically described in the policy statement. Bryant,
USCA11 Case: 22-13518 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-13518 Opinion of the Court 5
996 F.3d at 1252–64. We held that § 1B1.13 “is an applicable policy
statement that governs all motions under Section 3582(c)(1)(A).
Accordingly, district courts may not reduce a sentence under
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction would be consistent with
1B1.13.” Id. at 1262. “Thus, under Bryant, the only circumstances
that can rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons
for compassionate release are limited to those extraordinary and
compelling reasons as described by Section 1B1.13.” United States
v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2021).
Furthermore, the district court did not err in denying
Edwards’s motion for compassionate release. Even construing
Edwards’s pro se arguments liberally, he does not contend that his
circumstances match any of the four categories of “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” listed in § 1B1.13. He therefore has not
met his burden of showing that he is eligible for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), and the district court properly
denied his motion for compassionate release.
Consequently, the government’s position on appeal is
“clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
question as to the outcome of the case.” See Groendyke Transp., Inc.,
406 F.2d at 1162. We therefore GRANT the government’s motion
for summary affirmance, and—because the district court’s decision
was a final judgment—we DENY Edwards’s motion to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13518 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --