USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12868
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60245-WPD-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAFAEL FERNANDEZ GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 19, 2021)
Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Rafael Garcia, acting pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
for compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Garcia contends his medical conditions of a pulmonary embolism in 2000,
“multiple” heart attacks over “the next few years,” kidney stones in 2003,
hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, and high cholesterol “put him at a
tremendous risk” of contracting coronavirus, which he asserts “will enter” his
prison and “cannot be stopped.” He argues coronavirus “would be fatal” to him, so
his increased risk of contracting it is an extraordinary and compelling reason
warranting compassionate release. He also argues the district court failed to
analyze his listed extraordinary circumstances “thoroughly” and failed to address
his argument regarding sentencing disparities.
“We review de novo . . . determinations about a defendant’s eligibility for a
Section 3582(c) sentence reduction,” and “we review for abuse of discretion a
district court’s grant or denial of an eligible defendant’s reduction request.” United
States v. Bryant,
996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). A defendant isn’t eligible
for a § 3582(c)(1)(A) sentence reduction unless “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant” it, § 3582(c)(1)(A), and the first application note to U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13 defines what reasons qualify as extraordinary and compelling, § 1B1.13
cmt. n.1. The reasons listed in that application note, which we have held are
exhaustive, see Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1263–65, include terminal illness and serious,
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 5
permanent physical or medical conditions that substantially diminish a defendant’s
ability to care for himself, § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). The application note also
contains a catchall category for any “other reasons” the BOP director determines
are extraordinary and compelling. Id. at cmt. n.1(D). “[D]istrict courts may not
reduce a sentence under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction would be
consistent with [§] 1B1.13.” Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262.
When Garcia moved the BOP for compassionate release in March 2020, he
used a form that included a checklist of empty boxes next to reasons corresponding
with the ones listed in § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. Garcia checked the box next to “other:-
Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstance,” the entry intended to correspond to
the application note’s catchall category. And Garcia’s accompanying written
explanation gave his history of pulmonary embolism as the only reason in support
of his motion. As a result, the government contends Garcia failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies on any ground other than that one. But we will assume
Garcia comprehensively exhausted his administrative remedies because it doesn’t
matter given that the court didn’t err in ruling that he had not shown extraordinary
and compelling reasons to warrant compassionate release.
First, Garcia made clear on his motion form that he was applying for
compassionate release under the catchall provision of § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, which is
subpart (D). But that provision specifically requires the director of the BOP — not
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 5
the district court — to determine “what reasons not expressly listed in [§] 1B1.13
can be extraordinary and compelling.” Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1263; see also
§ 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). And despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the director of the
BOP has not determined that medical conditions that increase an inmate’s risk of
contracting coronavirus are extraordinary and compelling reasons for
compassionate release. 1 See BOP Program Statement 5050.50, Compassionate
Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for Implementation of
18 U.S.C. §§
3582 and 4205(g), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_050_EN.pdf.
Second, to the extent Garcia intended to apply for compassionate release
under the medical conditions provision of § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, which is subpart (A),
that provision is limited to conditions that are terminal or have permanently
debilitated a defendant. See § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). Garcia hasn’t argued any of his
ailments are terminal or have made him unable to care for himself, so they
wouldn’t make him eligible for compassionate release under subpart (A) even if he
had checked that box on the BOP form.
Finally, in denying the motion the district court explicitly considered both
the ailments Garcia argued were extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant
1
Nor has the BOP director determined that sentencing disparities are extraordinary and
compelling reasons for compassionate release. See BOP Program Statement 5050.50. That
makes sense because § 3582(c)(1) does not authorize direct challenges to a defendant’s sentence
on such grounds; those should be raised on direct appeal or in collateral proceedings under
28
U.S.C. § 2255.
4
USCA11 Case: 20-12868 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 5 of 5
compassionate release and the applicable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. This not
only refutes Garcia’s assertion that the court failed to adequately analyze his
motion, it also supports our conclusion that the court did not abuse its discretion.
See United States v. Harris,
989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (“The district court
additionally considered the § 3553(a) factors and § 1B1.13 n.1, which further
contributes to our holding that it did not abuse its discretion.”); see also United
States v. Cook,
998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (noting that courts evaluating
motions for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) must “consider all
applicable § 3553(a) factors”).
Because Garcia’s “motion does not fall within any of the reasons that [§]
1B1.13 identifies as ‘extraordinary and compelling,’ the district court correctly
denied his motion for a reduction of his sentence.” Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1265; see
also Harris, 989 F.3d at 912 (affirming the conclusion that hypertension and other
medical conditions were not “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to grant a
prisoner compassionate release).
AFFIRMED.
5
