USCA11 Case: 21-10064 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10064
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 3:08-cr-00027-LC-EMT-1; 3:13-cr-00095-LC-EMT-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT L IGNASIAK, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 14, 2021)
Before MARTIN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Ignasiak, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion for compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The
government moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s order and for a
USCA11 Case: 21-10064 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 2 of 6
stay of the briefing schedule, arguing that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Ignasiak’s motion. After careful review, we grant the
government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirm the district court’s order.
I.
Ignasiak is serving a 360-month sentence for healthcare fraud, dispensing
controlled substances, and failure to appear for a jury trial. United States v.
Ignasiak, 808 F. App’x 709, 712–13, 718 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
(unpublished). In March 2020, Ignasiak submitted a written request to the warden
of his prison facility for release or a reduction in his sentence due to COVID-19.
The warden denied his request. In June 2020, Ignasiak sought compassionate
release or a reduction of his sentence, arguing that (1) his medical conditions
rendered him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19; and (2) the sentence imposed
by the district court was excessive and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed in
favor of his release.
The district court denied Ignasiak’s motion. It first found that, based on
Ignasiak’s health conditions, he was “at a somewhat increased risk” of being
infected with COVID-19, but that risk was not grave, and his health was otherwise
stable. It then found even if Ignasiak’s medical conditions were deemed
sufficiently serious, the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release. In particular,
the district court noted that Ignasiak had a history of evading responsibility for his
2
USCA11 Case: 21-10064 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 3 of 6
actions, both before trial when he faked his own death and absconded from pretrial
supervision, and through postconviction motions in which he challenged the
veracity of his convictions. Ignasiak, 808 F. App’x at 713. The district court also
said Ignasiak’s crimes involved a reckless disregard for the health of his patients,
so “his actions constituted a danger to the community.”
This is Ignasiak’s appeal.
II.
We review de novo whether a district court was authorized to modify a term
of imprisonment. United States v. Jones,
962 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020).
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under
18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris,
989
F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court abuses its discretion when it
applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures, or makes clearly
erroneous findings of fact. United States v. Khan,
794 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir.
2015).
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.
3
USCA11 Case: 21-10064 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 4 of 6
1969). 1 We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground that appears in
the record, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the
court below. Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc.,
506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir.
2007) (per curiam).
III.
Ignasiak makes two arguments on appeal. Because he is proceeding pro se,
we construe his filings liberally. Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n,
787 F.3d 1105,
1107 (11th Cir. 2015). First, he says he presented clear and convincing evidence
that his medical conditions warranted compassionate release, and the district court
abused its discretion by ignoring that evidence. Second, in relation to his argument
that his sentence is excessive, Ignasiak says the district court abused its discretion
by finding he still poses a danger to the community. Ignasiak argues that because
his medical licenses were revoked and he can no longer obtain or prescribe
controlled substances, he is no longer a danger to the community. We address
each argument in turn.
First, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found Ignasiak’s
medical conditions were not an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting
release. The district court acknowledged each of Ignasiak’s identified medical
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as
binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.
Id. at 1209.
4
USCA11 Case: 21-10064 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 5 of 6
conditions, his age, and the effect of those medical conditions on Ignasiak. As
such, and contrary to Ignasiak’s argument on appeal, the court considered the facts
underlying his motion. The court found that despite these conditions, Ignasiak was
otherwise stable with ordinary medication and treatment. A defendant’s medical
conditions present extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate
release only when the conditions “substantially diminish[] the ability of the
defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility”
and the defendant is not expected to recover from the conditions. USSG § 1B1.13
cmt. n.1(A)(ii). The court properly applied this policy statement to the facts, which
support its finding that Ignasiak failed to establish extraordinary and compelling
reasons to warrant compassionate release.
Neither did the district court err in denying Ignasiak a sentence reduction.
The court expressly indicated it considered the § 3553(a) factors. See
18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Cook, ___ F.3d ___,
2021 WL 2149339,
at *2 (11th Cir. May 27, 2021). The district court discussed Ignasiak’s
convictions, postconviction challenges, and his attempts to avoid responsibility,
which “fits squarely” into § 3553(a)(1). See United States v. Williams,
526 F.3d
1312, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The court also noted that Ignasiak had
almost half of his total sentence remaining, which reflects consideration of the
needs to provide just punishment, reflect the seriousness of the offense, afford
5
USCA11 Case: 21-10064 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 6 of 6
adequate deterrence, promote respect for the law, and protect the public. See
18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court also found that Ignasiak’s crimes constituted a
danger to the community, which concern the nature and circumstances of his
offense and the need to protect the public. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(C).
This is sufficient consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
Kuhlman,
711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that district courts do not
have to explicitly discuss each factor it is required to consider).
Ignasiak points out that he no longer has his medical license, and, by this
logic, he no longer poses a danger to the community if he cannot prescribe
controlled substances to the community. Nevertheless, Ignasiak has failed to
establish the type of extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
compassionate release, required under this Court’s precedent, and, therefore, the
district court could not reduce his total sentence. See USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1;
United States v. Bryant,
996 F.3d 1243, 1262–65 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that
district courts may not reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction
is consistent with § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C)).
In sum, because there is no substantial question that the district court
correctly denied Ignasiak’s motion for compassionate release, we GRANT the
government’s motion for summary affirmance. See Groendyke Transp.,
406 F.2d
at 1162. We DENY the request to stay the briefing schedule as moot.
6
