The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-11460
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRAVIS LAMONT SMITH,
a.k.a. Hound,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20014-RAR-1
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 2 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11460
____________________
Before JORDAN, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that he no longer qualifies as
a career criminal in light of United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269
(11th Cir. 2023) (en banc), as his conviction was for an inchoate of-
fense. He also argues that the court incorrectly considered his
“other reasons” justifying a sentence reduction, by considering his
inability to communicate with loved ones during COVID-19, harsh
prison conditions, and his post-sentencing rehabilitation separately
as opposed to in combination.
We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen-
tence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Gi-
ron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). After eligibility is estab-
lished, we will review the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an abuse of discretion. Id. Moreover,
“[a] court must explain its sentencing decisions adequately enough
to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted).
A district court may grant compassionate release if: (1) an
extraordinary and compelling reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduc-
tion would be consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; and (3) the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of compassionate release.
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 3 of 9
24-11460 Opinion of the Court 3
United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021).
When the district court finds that one of these three prongs is not
met, it need not examine the other prongs. Giron, 15 F.4th at
1348.
The policy statements applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) are
found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Section 1B1.13,
as amended on November 1, 2023, states that a defendant’s sen-
tence may be reduced, upon motion of the defendant, where ex-
traordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction, the de-
fendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the
community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), and the court con-
siders the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. § 1B1.13(a) (2023). Sec-
tion 1B1.13 provides that an extraordinary and compelling reason
exists under any of the following circumstances or a combination
thereof: the medical circumstances of the defendant; the age of the
defendant; the family circumstances of the defendant; or if the de-
fendant was the victim of abuse while serving a term of incarcera-
tion. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(4) (quotation marks omitted). Medical cir-
cumstances that qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason
include suffering from a terminal illness, a serious physical or func-
tional impairment, or a condition that requires long term or spe-
cialized care. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(1). Family circumstances that qualify
as an extraordinary or compelling reason include the death or inca-
pacitation of a caregiver such that the defendant would be the only
available caregiver. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(3). A defendant is a victim of
abuse such that the abuse would qualify as an extraordinary and
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 4 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11460
compelling reason if the defendant is a victim or sexual abuse or
physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(4).
As amended in November 2023, § 1B1.13(b)(5) serves as a
catchall provision for “other reasons,” which states that a prisoner
may be eligible for a sentence reduction if he “presents any other
circumstance or combination of circumstances that, when consid-
ered by themselves or together with any of the reasons described
[above], are similar in gravity” to the other examples listed.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5); see also id., App. C, Amend. 814. Addition-
ally, the amended version of § 1B1.13(d) provides that the rehabili-
tation of the defendant, by itself, is not an extraordinary and com-
pelling reason for the purposes of the policy statement. Id.
§ 1B1.13(d). Rehabilitation can, however, be considered in combi-
nation with other circumstances to determine whether and to what
extent a reduction is warranted. Id.
Further, section 1B1.13 provides the following regarding
consideration of changes in the law for a defendant who received
an “unusually long sentence”:
If a defendant received an unusually long sentence
and has served at least 10 years of the term of impris-
onment, a change in the law . . . may be considered in
determining whether the defendant presents an ex-
traordinary and compelling reason, but only where
such change would produce a gross disparity between
the sentence being served and the sentence likely to
be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 5 of 9
24-11460 Opinion of the Court 5
full consideration of the defendant’s individualized
circumstances.
Id. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Section 1B1.13(c) provides the following regard-
ing limitations on consideration of changes in law:
Except as provided in subsection (b)(6), a change in
the law . . . shall not be considered for purposes of de-
termining whether an extraordinary and compelling
reason exists under this policy statement. However,
if a defendant otherwise establishes that extraordi-
nary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence re-
duction under this policy statement, a change in the
law . . . may be considered for purposes of determin-
ing the extent of any such reduction.
Id. § 1B1.13(c).
Under the Guidelines, a defendant is considered a career of-
fender if (1) he was at least 18 years old when he committed the
instant offense of conviction, (2) the instant offense of conviction is
a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance,
and (3) he has at least two prior felony convictions for either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. Id. § 4B1.1(a).
The Guidelines define a controlled substance offense as an offense
under federal or state law that is punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year and prohibits the manufacture, import,
export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance or the
possession of a controlled substance with intent toward the listed
acts. Id. § 4B1.2(b)(1).
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 6 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 24-11460
In Dupree, sitting en banc, we held that the definition of a
“controlled substance offense” in the former § 4B1.2(b) Guideline
unambiguously excluded inchoate offenses like conspiracy and at-
tempt and that it thus was unnecessary to consider, much less defer
to, the commentary to the former Guideline stating that “con-
trolled substance offense” includes conspiracy offenses. Dupree, 57
F.4th at 1277-79. The Guideline was amended to move that lan-
guage from the commentary regarding inchoate offenses to the
text of § 4B1.2 in November 2023. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2023); see id.,
App. C, Amend. 822. Thus, after November 2023, inchoate of-
fenses are included in the definition of a controlled substance of-
fense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(d) (2023).
Pursuant to the 2023 Sentencing Guidelines, under Section
2D1.1(b)(18), a defendant is entitled to a two level reduction in his
offense level if he meets the criteria of § 5C1.2. Id. § 2D1.1(b)(18).
Effective November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission adopted
Amendment 817 which amended § 5C1.2 to mirror the criteria in
the statutory safety valve in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which had been
amended to incorporate less stringent criteria for criminal history
points. Id. § 5C1.2(a)(1) (5) (2023); id. App. C, Amend. 817. These
criteria include, in relevant part, that the defendant must have no
more than four criminal history points from prior offenses, exclud-
ing points from one-point offenses, cannot have any prior three-
point offenses or violent two-point offenses, and must not have
been an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of others in the
offense, as determined under the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1),
(4).
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 7 of 9
24-11460 Opinion of the Court 7
An appellant may not raise an issue for the first time in a
reply brief. United States v. Chalker, 966 F.3d 1177, 1195 n.8 (11th
Cir. 2020). We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ba-
sis supported by the record. United States v. Castillo, 899 F.3d 1208,
1215 (11th Cir. 2018).
Here, the district court did not err in determining that Smith
was not eligible for a reduction in sentence under § 1B1.13(b)(6).
Smith argues that he no longer qualifies as a career offender be-
cause his present federal drug conspiracy offense is no longer a con-
trolled substance offense after Dupree, thus entitling him to relief
from his unusually long sentence because of the gross disparity be-
tween the sentence imposed in 2014 under the career offender en-
hancement and the sentence likely to be imposed under present
law without the enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). While
Smith is correct in stating that Dupree held that a drug conspiracy
conviction cannot be a controlled substance offense under the for-
mer § 4B1.2(b), that Guideline was amended to expressly state that
inchoate offenses do qualify as controlled substance offenses. See
Dupree, 57 F.4th at 1277 79; U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2023); id., App. C,
Amend. 822. Smith’s argument on appeal that the district court
erred in stating that the amendment took effect in November 2023
when it actually took effect in December 2023 is incorrect. See
U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 822. Hence, by the time Smith filed his
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, the text of the Guideline at issue in Dupree
had been amended to provide, clearly, that his drug conspiracy
conviction was a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(d);
id., App. C, Amend. 822. Smith does not challenge any other aspect
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 8 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 24-11460
of the career offender designation. Because the career offender en-
hancement still applies to Smith under current law, he cannot show
that the sentence he received in 2014 was greater than the sentence
likely to be imposed today, meaning he is ineligible for a sentence
reduction under § 1B1.13(b)(6).
This Court need not consider Smith’s argument about his
eligibility under Amendment 782 or the Ex Post Facto Clause be-
cause he raises these issues for the first time in his reply brief.
Chalker, 966 F.3d at 1195 n.8.
Smith’s safety valve argument fails because, as the district
court correctly noted, this Court already denied on appeal that
same argument regarding Smith’s 2004 convictions, defeating his
claim that he was entitled to a reduction in his criminal history
score and safety valve relief on that basis. United States v. Smith,
No. 14-13299, manuscript op. at 4.
There is nothing in Smith’s alleged “other reasons” that rises
to the gravity of the enumerated extraordinary and compelling rea-
sons in § 1B1.13(b). Smith argues that his post sentencing rehabili-
tation along with his inability to communicate with loved ones and
harsh prison conditions establish extraordinary and compelling rea-
sons sufficient to justify a sentence reduction. Smith’s arguments
about his rehabilitation center around completing educational
courses and certificates, and largely avoiding discipline. However,
he does not argue, nor does the record support, that he has no dis-
ciplinary record, which—contrary to Smith’s suggestion—weighs
slightly against a sentence reduction. Moreover, post-sentencing
USCA11 Case: 24-11460 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025 Page: 9 of 9
24-11460 Opinion of the Court 9
conduct cannot, on its own, establish an extraordinary and compel-
ling reason. And his alleged inability to communicate with his
loved ones and his alleged harsh prison conditions fall far short of
the level of gravity described in § 1B1.13(b)(1) through (4) so as to
qualify under § 1B1.13(b)(5). Considering the alleged circum-
stances combined, under de novo review, they do not justify a sen-
tence reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5); Giron, 15 F.4th at 1345;
Castillo, 899 F.3d at 1215.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.