The opinion
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10709
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JEROME DAVIS,
a.k.a. Mobey,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cr-00087-WKW-CSC-2
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10709
____________________
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Jerome Davis, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
peals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassion-
ate release. After careful consideration, we affirm.
I.
In 2013, a jury convicted Davis of one count of conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of powder
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; nine counts
of unlawful use of a communication facility, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 843; and one count of money laundering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(2). Because Davis had two
prior felony drug convictions, he faced a mandatory life sentence
on the drug conspiracy count. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2013)
(requiring court to impose a life sentence in a case involving five
kilograms or more of powder cocaine when the defendant has
“two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense”). At sen-
tencing, the district court imposed a life sentence. Davis appealed,
and we affirmed. See United States v. Reese, 611 F. App’x 961 (11th
Cir. 2015) (unpublished).
In 2021, Davis filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
seeking compassionate release. Davis acknowledged that under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) the district court had authority to reduce his sen-
tence only if it found that extraordinary and compelling
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 3 of 8
23-10709 Opinion of the Court 3
circumstances warranted a reduction. Davis argued that extraordi-
nary and compelling circumstances were present based on a
change in the law. He pointed out that Congress has recently
amended § 841(b)(1)(A) and argued he would not be subject to a
mandatory life sentence under the amended statute. After the
amendment, a defendant who committed an offense involving five
kilograms or more of powder cocaine was subject to a mandatory
life sentence due to prior drug convictions only if the prior convic-
tions qualified as “serious drug felon[ies].” 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)
(2021). And Davis said that his prior convictions did not qualify as
serious drug felonies.
The district court denied Davis’s motion. It explained that
this Court had held that the circumstances rising to the level of ex-
traordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction were
limited to the grounds set forth in the policy statement at § 1B1.13
of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243
(11th Cir. 2021). Because Davis was relying on a ground that was
not set forth in § 1B1.13, the district court reasoned, he had not
shown that extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted a sen-
tence reduction.
Over a year later, Davis filed a motion for reconsideration,
again arguing that he had established extraordinary and compelling
circumstances for a sentence reduction. While Davis’s motion was
pending before the district court, he requested a stay because the
Sentencing Commission was considering an amendment to clarify
what constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10709
under § 1B1.13. Davis asked the court to wait to rule on his motion
for reconsideration in case the proposed amendment went into ef-
fect.
The district court denied Davis’s motions. Based on Bryant,
it again concluded that Davis had not demonstrated extraordinary
and compelling circumstances for a sentence reduction. The court
also denied Davis’s request for a stay. This is Davis’s appeal.
II.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of
a compassionate release request. See United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d
908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion when
it commits a clear error of judgment, “applies an incorrect legal
standard, follows improper procedures in making the determina-
tion, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. at
911–12 (internal quotation marks omitted).
III.
Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce an im-
posed term of imprisonment if, “after considering the factors set
forth in [§] 3553(a),” it concludes that “extraordinary and compel-
ling reasons warrant such a reduction” and the reduction is “con-
sistent with the applicable policy statement” in the Sentencing
Guidelines: § 1B1.13. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see Bryant, 996 F.3d
at 1262. “[T]he only circumstances that can rise to the level of ex-
traordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release are
limited to those extraordinary and compelling reasons as described
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 5 of 8
23-10709 Opinion of the Court 5
by [§] 1B1.13.” United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.
2021).
The application notes for § 1B1.13 set forth four categories
of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for purposes of compas-
sionate release: (A) serious or terminal medical conditions, (B) ad-
vanced age, (C) family circumstances, and (D) “[o]ther [r]easons . . .
[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.” U.S.
Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. Under our precedent,
courts may not decide the contents of that fourth catch-all category
of other reasons—such discretion is reserved solely for the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons. See Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262–65.
Here, the district court did not err in denying Davis’s mo-
tion. On appeal, Davis does not contend that his reasons for relief
fall within any of the extraordinary and compelling circumstances
listed in § 1B1.13. Instead, he argues that the district court improp-
erly concluded that § 1B1.13 contained an exhaustive list of reasons
that could justify his compassionate release—asserting that
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) empowers courts to identify other extraordinary
and compelling reasons for relief so long as those justifications are
“consistent with” those in § 1B1.13.
This argument is foreclosed by our precedent in Bryant and
Giron. Bryant held that “district courts are bound by the . . . defini-
tion of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ found in [§] 1B1.13,”
and therefore they must apply that definition when assessing mo-
tions for compassionate release. 996 F.3d at 1262. Likewise, Giron
instructed that “the only circumstances that can rise to the level of
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10709
extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release
are limited to those extraordinary and compelling reasons as de-
scribed by [§] 1B1.13.” 15 F.4th at 1346 (emphasis added). Under
our prior-panel-precedent rule, we are bound by the holdings of
Bryant and Giron unless they have been “overruled or undermined
to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court
sitting en banc.” United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir.
2008). Thus, our precedent forecloses Davis’s argument that dis-
trict courts can identify extraordinary and compelling reasons for
release outside of those contained in § 1B1.13.
Davis argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022), overruled our
precedent. We have recognized that an “intervening decision of the
Supreme Court can overrule the decision of a prior panel of our
court” so long as the Supreme Court’s decision is “clearly on
point.” Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion did not overrule
or abrogate our precedent that district courts may grant compas-
sionate release only for the reasons listed in § 1B1.13. In Concepcion,
the Supreme Court discussed the factors that a district court could
consider when deciding sentence-reduction motions for crack-co-
caine convictions under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018.
142 S. Ct. at 2401–04. The Court held that when a district court was
deciding whether to exercise its discretion and award an eligible
defendant a sentence reduction, it could “consider other interven-
ing changes of law . . . or changes of fact,” reasoning that there were
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 7 of 8
23-10709 Opinion of the Court 7
no statutory constraints in place that prevented district courts from
doing so. Id. at 2396, 2400.
Because Concepcion’s holding did not address compassion-
ate-release motions, the decision did not overrule or abrogate our
precedent in Bryant and Giron about the types of circumstances that
are extraordinary and compelling enough for relief under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Indeed, Concepcion recognized that for some sen-
tencing matters, Congress “limited district courts to considering
only certain factors” by “requiring [them] to abide by the Sentenc-
ing Commission’s policy statements”—citing § 3582(c)(1)(A) com-
passionate-release motions as an example where judicial discretion
is “expressly cabined” by congressional decree. 142 S. Ct. at 2400–
01. This differentiation shows that Concepcion is not “clearly on
point.” Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Davis also challenges on appeal the district court’s decision
to deny his motion to stay. He says that the district court should
have waited to see whether the Sentencing Commission’s pro-
posed amendment to § 1B1.13 would go into effect. But the district
court had broad discretion in managing its docket and deciding
when to rule on Davis’s motion. See McLaurin v. Terminix Int’l Co.,
13 F.4th 1232, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). We cannot say that the dis-
trict court abused this discretion when it chose to rule on Davis’s
motion rather than waiting to see whether a proposed amendment
to § 1B1.13 went into effect. Notably, as the government points
out, nothing in the district court’s ruling “prevents Davis from fil-
ing a future motion for compassionate release” if the proposed
USCA11 Case: 23-10709 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10709
amendment becomes part of the Sentencing Guidelines. Appellee’s
Br. at 5. 1
AFFIRMED
1 Relatedly, Davis asks us to stay his appeal until the proposed amendment to
the Sentencing Guidelines goes into effect. We decline to do so for the reasons
set forth above.