United States v. Khalif Edwards

USCA11 Case: 22-13518 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13518

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, 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: 3 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: 4 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: 5 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.