USA v. Dondre Mantack

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12690
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60310-BB-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONDRE MANTACK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 20, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, MARTIN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Dondre Mantack, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion
for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mantack argues that his
condition of asplenia during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an extraordinary
and compelling reason supporting compassionate release, and he argues that the
district court erred by failing to conduct any research on the role of the spleen in
the human immune system. The district court found that Mantack failed to offer
any evidence that his asplenia placed him at a higher risk of suffering from
COVID-19. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Because section 3582(c)(1)(A) uses the permissive term “may” when it
grants district courts the authority to reduce a term of imprisonment for
extraordinary and compelling reasons, we review a denial of a motion for
compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 962
F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a
sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(1)(B) based on a retroactive statutory
change); United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for
abuse of discretion the denial of a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2)
based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines); Antonin Scalia &
Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 11, at 112 (2012)
(explaining that “may” is “permissive” and grants discretion). “A district court
abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper
USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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)
(quotation marks omitted).
A district court must find that a sentence reduction for extraordinary and
compelling reasons is consistent with policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing
Guidelines lists medical conditions, including a terminal illness or any serious or
physical medical condition that “substantially diminishes the ability of the
defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and
from which he [] is not expected to recover,” as examples of extraordinary and
compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1).
The movant bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief under section 3582.
See United States v. Green, 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Mantack pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and had served less than five
months of his 30-month sentence of imprisonment when the district court denied
his motion. When he moved for relief, Mantack was 28 years old. None of his
medical records described a weakness in his immune system, and Mantack failed
to present any medical evidence that he was immunocompromised or that he had
previously suffered heightened infection or other medical problems due to his
USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
asplenia. Mantack also made no argument that his asplenia is a serious medical
condition that diminishes his ability to care for himself while incarcerated. The
government explained that the Center for Disease Control had not identified
asplenia as a risk factor for COVID-19. And Mantack misunderstands the burden
of proof when he argues that the district court erred by failing to research the role
of the spleen in the immune system. The district court committed no error when it
ruled that Mantack had failed to prove an extraordinary and compelling reason for
compassionate release.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-12690 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --