United States v. Texeira-Nieves ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •             United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 21-1034
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Appellee,
    v.
    SAIEED JEAN TEXEIRA-NIEVES,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Lynch and Selya, Circuit Judges,
    and McCafferty,* District Judge.
    Eleonora C. Marranzini, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    with whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Franco L.
    Pérez-Redondo, and Cherrelle Herbert, Assistant Federal Public
    Defenders, were on brief, for appellant.
    Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, with
    whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E.
    Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
    Division, were on brief, for appellee.
    *   Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.
    January 12, 2022
    SELYA, Circuit Judge.       Defendant-appellant Saieed Jean
    Texeira-Nieves appeals the district court's denial of his motion
    for compassionate release under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A), as
    amended by the First Step Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b),
    
    132 Stat. 5194
    , 5239 (2018).           Concluding, as we do, that the
    district court's order was within the ambit of its discretion, we
    affirm.
    I
    We briefly rehearse the relevant facts and travel of the
    case.      In 2018, Puerto Rico police arrested the defendant during
    a traffic stop.      He was driving a vehicle that contained a loaded
    gun, thirty-one additional rounds of ammunition, and a satchel of
    controlled substances.      In an interview with federal agents, the
    defendant admitted that he possessed the controlled substances
    because he was in the business of selling drugs and that the
    firearm was there for protection.
    In due course, the defendant was charged in a five-count
    federal indictment.     He subsequently pleaded guilty to two counts:
    possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
    see   
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A),     and   possession   of   controlled
    substances with the intent to distribute them, see 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(D).1      The plea agreement confirmed that the
    1The remaining counts were later dismissed as contemplated
    in the plea agreement.
    - 3 -
    firearms charge carried with it a mandatory minimum prison term of
    five years.      With respect to the drug charge, the plea agreement
    noted that the guideline sentencing range was zero to six months
    of imprisonment.       The probation department proceeded to prepare a
    presentence investigation report (PSI Report) that reflected the
    guideline      calculations     and    ranges   as   adumbrated    in   the    plea
    agreement.
    The district court convened the disposition hearing in
    July of 2019.      The court imposed a one day term of immurement on
    the drug count and a consecutive sixty-month sentence on the
    firearms count.         The court       also imposed concurrent terms of
    supervised release.      The defendant did not appeal.2           And according
    to calculations by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) — the defendant is
    scheduled to be released on or about February 1, 2023.
    The defendant, who is in his late twenties, has several
    pre-existing medical conditions, including sickle cell disease.
    His   sickle    cell   anemia    and    complications    stemming       from   that
    disorder were documented in the PSI Report.                In June of 2020 —
    after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic                 —     the defendant
    submitted alternative requests to the warden of the correctional
    facility at which he was confined: he sought compassionate release
    2Indeed, no appeal was permitted: the aggregate sentence
    was within the parameters limned in the plea agreement and,
    therefore, the waiver-of-appeal provision in the plea agreement
    pretermitted the defendant's right to appeal.
    - 4 -
    pursuant to section 3582(c)(1)(A) or, in the alternative, transfer
    to home confinement pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
    Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 
    134 Stat. 281
    , 516 (2020).         His requests referred not only to his
    sickle cell anemia, which — according to the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention — presents a significantly increased risk
    for severe illness from COVID-19,                but also to     other medical
    conditions (such as thalassemia).            The defendant did not receive
    a response.
    In     October    of     2020,        the    defendant    moved    for
    compassionate      release   pursuant       to    the    compassionate-release
    statute.      See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A).             In support, he argued
    that his heightened risk of complications stemming from COVID-19,
    given   his     pre-existing      medical     conditions,      constituted     an
    "extraordinary     and   compelling"        reason      warranting   a   sentence
    reduction.      
    Id.
     § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).          He added that a reduction in
    his sentence and conversion of his remaining time to supervised
    release on home confinement would be a sufficient sentence in light
    of the applicable sentencing factors. The defendant also described
    the CARES Act and alleged certain considerations that might weigh
    in favor of transferring him to home confinement pursuant to that
    law.    The government reasonably construed these arguments as an
    alternative request for home confinement.
    - 5 -
    In December of 2020, the district court denied the
    defendant's motion on the papers.           In its order, the court stated
    that it adopted as its reasons for denial those provided by the
    government in its opposition and sur-reply memoranda.                  The court
    went on to state that the defendant had not demonstrated any
    extraordinary   or    compelling   reason     to   grant     his     request   for
    compassionate release, that the defendant was still a danger to
    the community, and that the court did not have the authority to
    order him to home confinement.        This timely appeal followed.
    II
    Before granting a sentence reduction in response to a
    prisoner-initiated     motion   for       compassionate      release    alleging
    extraordinary and compelling reasons, a district court must make
    three findings.      The court must find both that the defendant has
    presented an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a
    sentence reduction, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A)(i), and that "such
    a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
    by the Sentencing Commission," 
    id.
     § 3582(c)(1)(A).                    Next, the
    district   court   must   consider    any     applicable      section    3553(a)
    factors, see id., and "determine whether, in its discretion, the
    reduction . . . is     warranted     in    whole   or   in    part     under   the
    particular circumstances of the case," United States v. Saccoccia,
    
    10 F.4th 1
    , 4 (1st Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting
    Dillon v. United States, 
    560 U.S. 817
    , 827 (2010)).                The district
    - 6 -
    court is not required to address the section 3553(a) factors unless
    it finds in favor of the movant on the other issues.                         Our review
    is aided, though, when the district court takes the additional
    step of making a section 3553(a) determination.                       See United States
    v. Jones, 
    17 F.4th 371
    , 371 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
    In this appeal, the defendant marshals three primary
    arguments.       First, he contends that the district court unduly
    constrained the sweep of its discretion because it considered
    itself   bound       by    the   current       policy     statement     issued    by    the
    Sentencing Commission. Second, he contends that the district court
    abused its discretion by failing to offer an adequate explanation
    for denying his motion. Third, he contends that the district court
    erroneously concluded that it did not have the legal authority to
    order    him    to    serve      the    remainder       of   his   sentence      on    home
    confinement.         After pausing to address a threshold issue, we
    examine the defendant's trio of arguments one by one.
    A
    As an initial matter, the government asserts that the
    defendant's compassionate-release motion was improperly before the
    district   court          because      the    defendant      failed    to   exhaust    his
    administrative        remedies.              Section    3582(c)(1)(A)       provides     in
    relevant part that a defendant may move a district court for a
    sentence       reduction         "after       [he]     has    fully     exhausted       all
    administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a
    - 7 -
    motion on [his] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
    such a request by the warden of [his] facility, whichever is
    earlier."    
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A).           Here, the government does
    not dispute that the defendant asked the BOP for a sentence
    reduction and waited the required amount of time before filing his
    motion in the district court.               Instead, the government alleges
    that the facts and claims presented in the defendant's requests to
    the warden differ in some respects from those limned in his
    district    court    motion.        These    discrepancies,   the   government
    suggests, require a finding that the defendant did not properly
    exhaust his administrative remedies.
    The     question   of    whether    and   to   what   extent   issue
    exhaustion applies to judicial review of compassionate-release
    motions is freighted with uncertainty — but we need not resolve
    that question today.       Cf. Privitera v. Curran (In re Curran), 
    855 F.3d 19
    , 22 (1st Cir. 2017) ("[C]ourts should not rush to decide
    unsettled issues when the exigencies of a particular case do not
    require such definitive measures.").            Rather, we assume, favorably
    to the defendant, that he has satisfied section 3582(c)(1)(A)'s
    administrative exhaustion requirement.
    To be sure, some district courts have questioned whether
    the administrative exhaustion requirement for prisoner-initiated
    compassionate-release      motions      is    jurisdictional.       See,   e.g.,
    United States v. Guzman Soto, No. 18-10086, 
    2020 WL 1905323
    , at *3
    - 8 -
    (D. Mass.     Apr. 17,    2020).     If the administrative exhaustion
    requirement is of jurisdictional dimension, bypassing the issue
    may not be an available option.       See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff,
    
    484 F.3d 139
    , 143 (1st Cir. 2007) (explaining that "a federal court
    ordinarily may not assume the existence of jurisdiction in order
    to decide the merits of a case or controversy").            In our judgment,
    however,    this    exhaustion   requirement    is    not   a   jurisdictional
    limitation:     as several circuits previously have held, it is a
    non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.             See United States v.
    Saladino, 
    7 F.4th 120
    , 123 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (collecting
    cases).
    A rule is jurisdictional only if Congress has "clearly
    state[d] that a prescription counts as jurisdictional," and "when
    Congress does not rank a prescription as jurisdictional, courts
    should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character."
    Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 
    139 S. Ct. 1843
    , 1850 (2019) (quotations
    and   alterations      omitted).      The      administrative      exhaustion
    requirement    in     section    3582(c)(1)(A)       neither    "speak[s]   in
    jurisdictional terms" nor "refer[s] in any way to the [court's]
    jurisdiction."      Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 
    455 U.S. 385
    ,
    394 (1982); see Fort Bend, 
    139 S. Ct. at 1846, 1850
    .              Thus, there
    is nothing resembling a jurisdictional defect here.
    - 9 -
    B
    On the merits, the defendant's lead argument relates to
    the   requirement     of     the   compassionate-release        statute   that   a
    reduction   be   "consistent"        with     "applicable     policy   statements
    issued by the Sentencing Commission."             
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A).
    Specifically,    he    argues      that     the   district    court    mistakenly
    considered itself bound by this requirement.                 He bases this claim
    of error partially on the premise, not advanced below, that the
    current policy statement is not an "applicable" policy statement
    that should be regarded as binding a district court adjudicating
    a prisoner-initiated motion for compassionate release.
    We have encountered this argument before, see Saccoccia,
    10 F.4th at 7-8, and briefly trace its contours.                The FSA amended
    the compassionate-release statute — which previously required such
    motions to be initiated by the BOP — to allow for prisoner-
    initiated motions.         See Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat.
    at 5239. The current policy statement (section 1B1.13) was crafted
    by the Sentencing Commission before the passage of the FSA and
    addresses the compassionate-release process as one requiring a
    motion by the BOP.         See USSG §1B1.13.        The application notes to
    the policy statement also provide categories of extraordinary and
    compelling reasons, including a catch-all category of "[o]ther
    [r]easons" "[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of
    Prisons."     Id.     cmt.    n.1(A)-(D)      (delineating     other   categories
    - 10 -
    related to medical conditions, age, and family circumstances).
    The Sentencing Commission has not had a quorum from the time the
    FSA was passed and, therefore, has not been able to issue any
    revised guidance.        See Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 7.               For this reason,
    the   defendant     says,      the       current    policy   statement      is   not    an
    "applicable" policy statement that should be construed to bind a
    district court's consideration of a prisoner-initiated motion.
    The overwhelming majority of courts of appeals have adopted this
    view.     See id. at 8 (collecting cases).                 But see United States v.
    Bryant, 
    996 F.3d 1243
    , 1262 (11th Cir. 2021) (determining that
    current policy statement is still an "applicable policy statement"
    for prisoner-initiated motions).
    This    issue      —    at     least    potentially       —    could     have
    significant ramifications in other cases.                         For example, if the
    current policy statement does not apply, a district court is free
    (within the usual constraints of statutory construction) to craft
    its own definition of "extraordinary and compelling reasons."                           As
    another example, if the policy statement does not apply, a district
    court     would    not   need       to    adhere     to    the    policy    statement's
    requirement that the court may grant compassionate release based
    on extraordinary and compelling reasons only if "the defendant is
    not   a   danger    to   the    safety       of    any    other    person   or   to    the
    - 11 -
    community."3       USSG §1B1.13(1)(A), (2).         With such ramifications in
    mind, we previously have found it prudent to refrain from resolving
    this issue when the circumstances of a particular case do not
    demand such a resolution.        See Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 8.
    We follow the same path today.             The defendant's qualms
    about the inapplicability of the policy statement were not raised
    below and, in any event, this case does not require that we decide
    the issue.     Even if we assume (favorably to the defendant) that
    the district court treated section 1B1.13 as mandatory and that,
    in   so   doing,    it   committed   error    (or    even   plain   error),   the
    defendant still would not prevail.            We explain briefly.
    A defendant who demonstrates both that extraordinary and
    compelling reasons exist for a sentence reduction and that such a
    reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statement must
    clear yet another hurdle.            He must persuade the district court
    that the section 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of a sentence
    reduction.     See id. at 4 (explaining that court must consider
    3The compassionate-release statute does not require a finding
    that a defendant is not a danger to the community in order to grant
    compassionate release based on an extraordinary and compelling
    reason. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A)(i). But the statute does
    require such a finding for compassionate release pursuant to
    section 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a district court to reduce
    a sentence for some imprisoned persons at least seventy years of
    age, who have served at least thirty years.               See 
    id.
    § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). This statutory provision expressly requires
    a determination by the BOP that "the defendant is not a danger to
    the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under
    section 3142(g)." Id.
    - 12 -
    sentencing factors and determine whether reduction is "warranted
    in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case"
    (quoting Dillon, 
    560 U.S. at 827
    )).       These issues need not be
    considered in any particular order.    See United States v. Jones,
    
    980 F.3d 1098
    , 1116 (6th Cir. 2020) (Cook, J., concurring) ("No
    feature of [section] 3582(c)(1)(A) precludes a court from tackling
    the [section] 3553(a) factors first.").    Thus, a district court's
    decision to deny compassionate release may be affirmed solely on
    the basis of its supportable determination that the section 3553(a)
    factors weigh against the granting of such relief.      See, e.g.,
    Ward v. United States, 
    11 F.4th 354
    , 360 (5th Cir. 2021); United
    States v. Ruffin, 
    978 F.3d 1000
    , 1008 (6th Cir. 2020); United
    States v. Pawlowski, 
    967 F.3d 327
    , 330-31 (3d Cir. 2020); United
    States v. Rodd, 
    966 F.3d 740
    , 747-48 (8th Cir. 2020).      In other
    words, a supportable determination that the balance of the section
    3553(a) factors weighs against a sentence reduction constitutes an
    independent reason to deny compassionate release.       See United
    States v. Canales-Ramos, 
    19 F.4th 561
    , 569 n.4 (1st Cir. 2021);
    Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 8; cf. United States v. Zayas-Ortiz, 
    808 F.3d 520
    , 523 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that even when a defendant
    is eligible for a section 3582(c) sentence reduction, a district
    court may determine, based on the sentencing factors, that "a
    reduction would be inappropriate" (quotations omitted)).
    - 13 -
    This is such a case.      The district court expressly found
    that the defendant remained a threat to the community and cited to
    section 3553(a).     Its order also explicitly adopted "the reasons
    indicated by the United States in its opposition and sur-reply."
    These   reasons    included   the     government's    position    that   the
    sentencing factors disfavored a sentence reduction and outweighed
    the defendant's medical concerns.            Thus —    assuming   that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in calibrating the
    section 3553(a) balance — there is no need for us to wade into the
    debate over the applicability of the current policy statement.
    C
    This brings us to the district court's decision to deny
    the defendant's motion based on the section 3553(a) factors.              We
    start with the elementary tenet that district courts possess
    significant discretion in evaluating motions for compassionate
    release.   See Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 4-5.           Our review is solely
    for abuse of that discretion.       See Canales-Ramos, 19 F.4th at 564;
    Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 4-5.         Under this respectful standard, "we
    review the district court's answers to legal questions de novo,
    factual findings for clear error, and judgment calls with some
    deference to the district court's exercise of its discretion."
    Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Azar, 
    976 F.3d 86
    , 92 (1st Cir. 2020).
    As   relevant   here,    the   compassionate-release     statute
    provides that a district court "may" reduce a sentence "after
    - 14 -
    considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
    that they are applicable."         See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A).                A
    district   court's    balancing    of     the     section   3553(a)     factors
    represents a quintessential judgment call and, therefore, falls
    into the last of the three buckets described in Akebia.              See United
    States v. Santiago-Rivera, 
    744 F.3d 229
    , 232 (1st Cir. 2014). This
    makes perfect sense: the district court is "in a superior position
    to find facts and judge their import under [section] 3553(a) in
    the individual case."       Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007) (quotations omitted).
    To permit appellate review, we must be able to discern
    to some extent a district court's reasoning.            This does not mean,
    however, that the district court must spell out the reasons for
    denying a compassionate-release motion in granular detail.                    "The
    appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when
    to write, what to say, depends upon circumstances." Rita v. United
    States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 356 (2007) (describing judicial opinion-
    writing generally).        A short, concise statement usually will
    suffice.   Cf. 
    id. at 359
     (concluding in the initial-sentencing
    context that a district court need not provide an extensive
    explanation    for   its   sentencing     decision     when   a     "matter    is
    conceptually   simple"     and   the    "record    makes    clear    that     [it]
    considered the evidence and arguments").               In some cases, the
    district court may simply state that it has considered the parties'
    - 15 -
    arguments and then rely on the record in making its determination.
    "The   law    leaves   much,   in    this   respect,   to   the   judge's      own
    professional judgment."        
    Id.
    In reviewing the imposition of a sentence, we consider
    the entire context and record.          See Chavez-Meza v. United States,
    
    138 S. Ct. 1959
    , 1967 (2018).           So, too, we consider the entire
    context and record in determining whether a district court's denial
    of a compassionate-release motion allows for adequate appellate
    review.      See Jones, 980 F.3d at 1112; cf. Chavez-Meza, 
    138 S. Ct. at 1967
     (reviewing entire record in assessing sufficiency of
    district court's explanation for sentence-modification decision).
    With this preface, we turn to a consideration of whether
    the district court abused its discretion in weighing the section
    3553(a) factors.         Section 3553(a) is "a tapestry of factors,
    through which runs the thread of an overarching principle." United
    States v. Rodríguez, 
    527 F.3d 221
    , 228 (1st Cir. 2008).                     This
    overarching principle directs courts to ensure that a sentence is
    "sufficient, but not greater than necessary." 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    Even though this principle was fashioned for use in the initial-
    sentencing context, its spirit must guide a court tasked with
    considering     the    sentencing    factors   in   light   of    any   form    of
    sentence-reduction motion (including a motion for compassionate
    release).
    - 16 -
    In effect, section 3553(a) "invite[s] the district court
    to consider, broadly," United States v. Politano, 
    522 F.3d 69
    , 74
    (1st   Cir.    2008),   information      relevant   to   the    "nature   and
    circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics
    of the defendant," 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).        It simultaneously invites
    the court to consider matters like "the need for the sentence
    imposed" to "reflect the seriousness of the offense," "to afford
    adequate deterrence to criminal conduct," and "to protect the
    public from further crimes of the defendant."            
    Id.
    Here, the context and record show that the district court
    gave   due    consideration   to   the   section    3553(a)    factors.    It
    concluded — by adopting the government's arguments and reasons for
    denial of the defendant's compassionate-release motion — that the
    section 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of a sentence
    reduction.      The reasoning for this conclusion can             easily be
    discerned from the record, especially the parties' briefing and
    the court's order.      See United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 
    440 F.3d 514
    , 519 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by
    Rita, 
    551 U.S. 338
     (explaining that a court's reasoning for its
    sentence can "often be inferred by comparing what was argued by
    the parties or contained in the pre-sentence report with what the
    judge did").
    The district court cited to section 3553(a) immediately
    following its finding that the defendant posed a danger to the
    - 17 -
    community.    This signifies that the court considered the offenses
    of conviction and the defendant's history and characteristics — as
    outlined in the government's briefing and chronicled in the PSI
    Report — and that these data points informed the district court's
    consideration of the sentencing factors.         And we are confident
    that the district court also weighed its finding that the defendant
    continued to pose a danger to the community as part of its section
    3553(a) analysis. There would have been no reason for the district
    court to have cited those factors after its dangerousness finding
    unless the finding had relevance to that analysis.           The weight
    that we accord this reference seems especially appropriate given
    that the district court apparently adopted the government's view
    that it need not reach the sentencing factors if it considered
    dangerousness    an   absolute   bar   to   relief   under   the   policy
    statement.4
    An additional factor helps to tilt the balance.             The
    defendant's compassionate-release motion was decided by the same
    judge who originally had sentenced him.      When imposing a sentence,
    a judge necessarily acquires an intimate knowledge of the offense
    of conviction and the history and characteristics of the offender.
    See United States v. Aponte-Guzmán, 
    696 F.3d 157
    , 161 (1st Cir.
    4 We have no occasion to pass upon the propriety of relying
    on a finding of dangerousness alone as an independently sufficient
    reason to deny compassionate release pursuant to section
    3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
    - 18 -
    2012) (affording "considerable measure of respect" to denial of
    sentence-reduction motion by judge who imposed original sentence
    and,   thus,   had   "superior   coign    of   vantage"   and   "hands-on
    familiarity with the case").     This reservoir of knowledge does not
    vanish into thin air when the judge later considers the offender's
    motion for compassionate release.
    Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot
    say that the district court abused its discretion in denying
    compassionate release based on the section 3553(a) factors.           As
    the government argued below, the offenses were serious:               the
    defendant — an admitted drug-peddler who carried a firearm to
    protect himself and his inventory — was arrested driving a car
    while in possession of a firearm loaded with eleven rounds of .40
    caliber ammunition, several additional rounds of ammunition, and
    a satchel of drugs.     What is more, the judge — after considering
    the defendant's history and characteristics — determined that the
    defendant continued to pose a danger to the community, and that
    finding was not clearly erroneous.
    The defendant counters that there are other reasons the
    sentencing factors should weigh in favor of a sentence reduction.
    He points to the effect of the pandemic on the conditions of
    incarceration, which could not have been predicted at the time of
    sentencing.    He also points to aspects of his history, health, and
    characteristics that, in his view, throw shade on the district
    - 19 -
    court's   finding        that   he     continues    to   pose   a   danger    to   the
    community.     But the defendant's arguments, along with the relevant
    medical records and the PSI Report, were before the district court.
    And   where,   as    here,      the    district     court   weighs    the    relevant
    considerations and makes a reasonable judgment call, deference is
    due to its determination.              See Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 9 (noting
    that "[m]erely raising potentially mitigating factors does not
    guarantee a favorable decision" (alteration in original) (quoting
    United States       v.     Dávila-González, 
    595 F.3d 42
    , 49      (1st Cir.
    2010))); see also United States v. Rivera-Morales, 
    961 F.3d 1
    , 21
    (1st Cir. 2020) (explaining that the court of appeals "must accord
    significant     deference         to     the   [district]       court's      informed
    determination       that    the      section   3553(a)      factors   justify      the
    sentence imposed").
    D
    In a related vein, the defendant contends that the
    district court's sparse reasoning is itself an abuse of discretion.
    The fact that we have been able to review the district court's
    decision, see supra Part II(C), is a good indication that the
    district court's order is not so inscrutable as to constitute an
    abuse of discretion.
    It is true, of course, that the district court's order
    contains only minimal reasoning.                   A fuller explication of the
    court's thinking would have been helpful.                See Chavez-Meza, 138 S.
    - 20 -
    Ct. at 1967 ("Providing a more detailed statement of reasons often
    serves a salutary purpose separate and apart from facilitating
    appellate review." (quotations omitted)).        In the circumstances of
    this case, however, we deem the explanation adequate.
    Critically,     the      district   court's    reasoning    is
    illuminated by what the order says, by the briefing, and by the
    record as a whole.         Though the district court's minimalistic
    approach of merely adopting the government's reasons for denying
    compassionate release could conceivably be inadequate in some
    cases, cf. id. at 1967 (suggesting — with respect to motion for
    sentence reduction — that "district court's use of a bare bones
    form order," though sufficient based on circumstances at hand,
    might "be inadequate" in other cases), we think that such an
    approach was within the ambit of the court's discretion in this
    case.     As a denial of a sentence reduction by the same judge who
    shortly     before   had   imposed     the   defendant's   sentence,   the
    consideration of the sentencing factors involved passing on much
    the same information as at the initial sentencing.               Any new
    considerations brought forward by the defendant were relatively
    uncomplicated matters.     Thus, we reject the defendant's contention
    that the explanation was so sparse as to constitute an abuse of
    discretion.
    - 21 -
    E
    Finally, the defendant challenges the district court's
    conclusion that it lacked the authority to order home confinement.
    Because this challenge hinges on a question of law, our review is
    de novo.        See Akebia Therapeutics, 976 F.3d at 92.
    The   compassionate-release       provision     contemplates   any
    form       of   sentence   reduction.       See   
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A)
    (providing generally that district court "may reduce the term of
    imprisonment"); see also Saccoccia, 10 F.4th at 4, n.2.                            In
    addition, the statute specifically provides that a district court
    may "impose a term of probation or supervised release with or
    without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of
    the original term of imprisonment."               
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A).
    Despite this wide sweep, though, the statute does not specifically
    grant       a   district   court   authority      to   change    the   site   of   a
    defendant's confinement.           The statute's silence on this point
    comports with the BOP's "plenary control . . . over the place of
    the prisoner's imprisonment."5          Tapia v. United States, 
    564 U.S. 319
    , 331 (2011) (quotations omitted).
    For the sake of completeness, we note that the CARES Act,
    5
    passed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, extended the period
    of home confinement that the BOP is statutorily authorized to order
    pursuant to section 3624(c)(2).           See Pub. L. 116-136,
    § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. at 516.
    - 22 -
    We "must presume that a legislature says in a statute
    what it means and means in a statute what it says."                            Ruiz v. Bally
    Total Fitness Holding Corp., 
    496 F.3d 1
    , 8 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting
    Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 
    534 U.S. 438
    , 461-62 (2002)). "Unless
    the statute means something other than what it says" — and we do
    not think that it does — "the absence of" any reference to
    modifying      a    defendant's         location       of    confinement       denotes    that
    section      3582(c)(1)(A)          does      not    afford      a    district    court   the
    authority to order a defendant to serve his unmodified sentence at
    home.
    In an effort to make an end run around the statutory
    scheme, the defendant advances a different reading of the district
    court's ruling.         To lay the groundwork for this alternate reading,
    the defendant notes that the district court could have reduced his
    sentence       to   a   term      of    supervised          release    and     ordered    home
    confinement as a condition of supervised release.                                Building on
    this    foundation,          he    says    that      the     district        court's   ruling
    incorrectly assumed that the court did not have these powers.                               In
    other words, he suggests that the district court must have thought
    that    it   could      not       craft    any      sort    of   sentence      modification
    incorporating           home      confinement          even      if     it     granted     the
    compassionate-release motion.
    This reading of the district court's ruling elevates
    hope    over       reason.         In   the    proceedings           below,    both    parties
    - 23 -
    acknowledged that the district court could reduce a sentence to
    time served, impose a term of supervised release equal to the
    unserved portion of the term, and order home confinement as a
    condition   of   supervised   release.        The   district    court    flatly
    rejected this alternative: it concluded that no sentence reduction
    (let alone a reduction to time served) was warranted.                    Viewed
    against   this   backdrop,    the   purport    of   the   district      court's
    statement is clear as day:      it believed that the duration of the
    defendant's sentence should not be modified and that the court
    lacked the authority to change his place of confinement.
    The defendant has a fallback position.             He argues that
    the district court could have recommended that the BOP place him
    in home confinement.     But this argument was not advanced in the
    court below, and a party who has not asked for specific relief in
    the district court cannot secure that relief on appeal. See United
    States v. Adams, 
    971 F.3d 22
    , 37 (1st Cir. 2020) (applying "general
    rule that a party cannot ask the court of appeals for relief that
    he did not seek in the district court"); Beaulieu v. IRS, 
    865 F.2d 1351
    , 1352 (1st Cir. 1989) ("It is a party's first obligation to
    seek any relief that might fairly have been thought available in
    the district court before seeking it on appeal.").              Consequently,
    we deem the argument waived.
    - 24 -
    III
    We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
    the judgment of the district court is
    Affirmed.
    — Concurring Opinion Follows —
    - 25 -
    MCCAFFERTY, District Judge, concurring.       I agree with
    the majority that the district court's decision can be affirmed
    based on the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors.      I write separately to
    express dismay that the government –- both before the district
    court and on appeal -- repeatedly attempted to call into question
    Texeira-Nieves's   well-documented   sickle   cell   anemia,   with   no
    apparent factual basis to do so. The district court denied release
    in a short order citing "the reasons indicated" by the government.
    The government did not deserve such wholesale deference.
    The record was undisputed that Texeira-Nieves suffered
    from sickle cell anemia.6     First, Texeira-Nieves's Presentence
    Investigation Report ("PSR") included the names of two doctors who
    had treated him for sickle cell anemia.         One of the doctors
    certified that Texeira-Nieves had been her patient for several
    years, and records indicated that prior to his arrest, Texeira-
    Nieves saw her once a month for care related to his sickle cell
    disease.   Further, the PSR stated that in the two years prior to
    his arrest, Texeira-Nieves had been hospitalized twice for sickle
    cell anemia complications and had required blood transfusions and
    6 Sickle cell anemia is the most severe form of sickle cell
    disease, an umbrella term for a group of inherited red blood cell
    disorders. Sickle Cell Disease (SCD), Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/facts.html
    (last visited January 4, 2022).
    - 26 -
    intravenous medication.              It also indicated that he had been
    hospitalized more than 25 times since 2014, though it did not state
    specifically whether those hospitalizations were related to sickle
    cell disease.
    In addition, Texeira-Nieves attached medical records
    from   2018    to   his    October     2020    compassionate        release   motion.
    These records stated that he had sickle cell anemia, and indicated
    that he was "stable on treatment" yet "chronically ill."                       He also
    attached a declaration from a doctor who had not evaluated him
    specifically,       but    stated     that,    in   general,    preliminary      data
    revealed that the COVID-19 mortality rate for those with sickle
    cell disease was twice that of the general population.
    Despite this evidence, the government asserted in its
    opposition brief before the district court that the defendant
    "ha[d] not provided sufficient documentation or evidence that the
    asserted   medical        condition    is     currently   active      and   seriously
    affecting his health," nor any evidence that his "ailments still
    exist today." Given the chronic nature of sickle cell anemia (and,
    if there were any doubt, defendant's medical records indicated he
    was "chronically ill"), the government's assertions were spurious.
    In response to the government's assertions, Texeira-
    Nieves attached additional medical records to his reply.                        These
    records    indicated       that     while     incarcerated     in    October    2020,
    Texeira-Nieves "was found to be in sickle cell crisis" and was
    - 27 -
    admitted to an outside hospital.7       They also stated that while
    incarcerated he continued to take medication to treat his sickle
    cell disease. In addition to his sickle cell symptoms, the records
    indicated that Texeira-Nieves needed hip surgery, experienced
    "debilitating pain," and suffered from various additional medical
    conditions.
    Yet in the government's surreply, it again attempted to
    cast doubt on Texeira-Nieves's sickle cell anemia.       The government
    acknowledged   that   Texeira-Nieves    had   provided   "some   medical
    notes," but argued that the diagnoses in the medical records were
    based only on Texeira-Nieves's own reports, and that "there [were]
    no independent medical records corroborating Defendant's diagnoses
    and/or that he currently suffers [from] those medical conditions
    (except for hip pain)."    The government's repeated assertion that
    Texeira-Nieves did not suffer from sickle cell anemia was entirely
    unfounded.
    Even on appeal, the government has not relented.        In its
    brief to this court, it asserts:
    As the government argued, and the district court agreed,
    Texeira failed to adequately support that he had a sickle
    cell disease condition. He initially provided old medical
    7 "Sickle cell crisis" refers to the periodic episodes of pain
    which are a major symptom of sickle cell anemia. Severe sickle
    cell crises require hospitalization. Sickle cell anemia, The Mayo
    Clinic,    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sickle-
    cell-anemia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355876 (last visited January 4,
    2022).
    - 28 -
    notes, which these [sic] did not clearly indicate a clear
    diagnosis of sickle cell disease and reflected generally good
    health. (ASA 48). In a subsequent reply, Texeira provided
    additional medical records. (ASA 132). But the records again
    did not reflect a clear diagnosis of sickle cell disease.
    (Id.).
    I am at a loss to understand how the government can argue in good
    faith that a PSR containing uncontroverted evidence of Texeira-
    Nieves's sickle cell anemia, combined with records from medical
    providers he saw while incarcerated that confirm the same, is not
    sufficient documentation of his chronic illness.
    The   district   judge's   order   denying   Texeira-Nieves's
    compassionate release motion stated that the motion was "DENIED,
    for the reasons indicated by the United States in its opposition
    and sur-reply."     The order went on to state that "Defendant
    Texeira-Nieves ha[d] not shown any extraordinary or compelling
    reason to grant his request for compassionate release."
    If this court were to reach the issue of extraordinary
    and compelling reasons, I would hold that the district court's
    finding that Texeira-Nieves did not present extraordinary and
    compelling reasons was premised on a clearly erroneous factual
    finding.   The district court based its denial of release on the
    government's argument.      The government's argument that Texeira-
    Nieves had not shown he suffered from sickle cell anemia is not
    only clearly erroneous based on reviewing the entire record, but
    it lacks any supporting evidence whatsoever.      See Pullman-Standard
    - 29 -
    v. Swift, 
    456 U.S. 273
    , 284 n.14 (1982) (citation omitted) ("A
    finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to
    support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
    with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
    committed.").   However, since the extraordinary and compelling
    reasons issue need not be reached in this case, I concur with the
    majority.
    - 30 -