USCA11 Case: 20-13487 Date Filed: 05/14/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13487
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:01-cr-00180-WFJ-AAS 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEC V. MATHEWS,
a.k.a. Alex Matthews,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 14, 2021)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13487 Date Filed: 05/14/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Alec Mathews, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. The government moved for
summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. We grant the government’s
motion for summary affirmance.
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
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for
compassionate release. United States v. Harris,
989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).
“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows
improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are
clearly erroneous.”
Id. at 911–12 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In general, a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it
has been imposed” except under certain circumstances.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). One
such exception is for “compassionate release.” Harris, 989 F.3d at 909–10. A
sentence reduction for compassionate release is available “in any case” where:
the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon
motion of the defendant . . . after considering the factors set forth in [18
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
October 1, 1981.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13487 Date Filed: 05/14/2021 Page: 3 of 5
U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, . . . finds that
. . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction[.]
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
In 2001, a jury convicted Mathews of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846, and
possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of
18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). For these offenses, the district court sentenced Mathews to
a total term of 300 months’ imprisonment.
In 2020, Mathews, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for compassionate
release in the district court. The district court denied the motion, finding that it
was not authorized to award a reduction because Mathews failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies and had not established that extraordinary and compelling
reasons warranted a reduction. In the alternative, the court decided that even if
Mathews were eligible for a sentence reduction, it would decline to exercise its
discretion to award one. In making this determination, the court expressly
considered the sentencing factors set forth at
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 2
2
Section § 3553(a) states that a court should “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater
than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
training.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a sentence, a court also should consider: the nature
and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of
sentences available, the sentencing range established under the guidelines, any pertinent policy
statement issued by the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13487 Date Filed: 05/14/2021 Page: 4 of 5
Mathews’s arguments on appeal are limited to challenging the district court’s
conclusions that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and was ineligible
for compassionate release. Mathews has not challenged the district court’s
alternative ruling that even if he were eligible for a sentence reduction, it would not
exercise its discretion to award one. When a district court judgment “is based on
multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated
ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If “an appellant fails to challenge
properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment,
he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the
judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id.; see Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not
briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”) (citation omitted)).
Because Mathews has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s alternative
ruling that it would not exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence, the judgment
is due to be affirmed.
Even assuming that Mathews did not abandon this challenge on appeal, a
summary affirmance would still be appropriate. We cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in denying a sentence reduction based on the § 3553(a) factors.
In explaining why it would not exercise its discretion, the district court expressly
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13487 Date Filed: 05/14/2021 Page: 5 of 5
discussed several § 3553(a) factors such as: Mathews’s history and characteristics,
including his criminal history and his disciplinary history while incarcerated; the
need to reflect the seriousness of the offense; and the need to protect the public from
further crimes. It is well established that “the weight to be accorded any given §
3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and
we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.” United States
v. Kuhlman,
711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013) (alteration adopted) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Because there is no substantial question as to the
outcome of this appeal, we conclude summary affirmance is appropriate. See
Groendyke Transp,
406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, the government’s motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED and its motion to stay the briefing schedule is
DENIED as moot.
5
