USCA11 Case: 20-14791 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14791
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cr-80034-KAM-21
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK DAVIS MOORE, JR.,
a.k.a. Bow Head,
a.k.a. Bodeen,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 2, 2021)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-14791 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Frank Moore, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
second motion for compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as
amended by section 603(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391,
132
Stat. 5194. The district court denied Moore’s compassionate-release motion for
two reasons: First, it found that Moore has not demonstrated any “extraordinary
and compelling” circumstances, pursuant to the criteria listed in Application Note
1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, that would warrant compassionate release. Second, it
found that the sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against
relief. On appeal, Moore argues that the district court erred in requiring him to
show one of the extraordinary and compelling circumstances in Application Note
1, because Application Note 1 does not limit what the district court can consider
when deciding whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A). He also
argues that the district court erred in failing to consider the merits of his second
motion for compassionate release.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Harris,
989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir.
2021). “To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that 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). When an appellant does not “challenge properly
2
USCA11 Case: 20-14791 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 3 of 3
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. We liberally construe briefs by pro se
litigants, but issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Timson v.
Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Moore presents no
argument that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the § 3553(a)
factors weigh against compassionate release. Because he does not challenge one of
the grounds that the district court relied on to decide his motion, we affirm the
district court’s denial of Moore’s compassionate-release motion on that basis and
do not reach the § 1B1.13 and merits issues.
AFFIRMED.
3
