USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13245
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00038-JRH-BKE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE BOBO JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 26, 2021)
Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 2 of 7
Defendant Tyrone Johnson, a federal prisoner acting pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate
release and a related order denying reconsideration. The district court denied
Johnson’s motion for compassionate release on two grounds: first, it determined
Johnson had not exhausted his administrative remedies; second, even if Johnson had
satisfied the exhaustion requirement, the district court found that his medical
conditions—hypertension and prediabetes—were not “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release. Johnson challenges both
rulings on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Johnson’s motion and therefore affirm.
I.
Under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), a court “may” modify a defendant’s term of
imprisonment under certain circumstances. This language renders the district
court’s decision discretionary, so we review it for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Harris,
989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). As a result, the district court enjoys
wider latitude and “we cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different
conclusion had it been our call to make.”
Id. at 912 (quotation marks omitted). “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. (quotation marks omitted). Additionally, we liberally
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 3 of 7
construe the filings of pro se parties like Johnson. Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n,
787 F.3d 1105, 1007 (11th Cir. 2015).
II.
We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we discuss the exhaustion
requirement under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and explain why it does not affect the
outcome of this case. Second, we conclude that Johnson’s medical conditions do
not qualify him for compassionate release under the First Step Act.
A. The exhaustion requirement is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule;
whether it is mandatory or not, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Johnson’s motion for failure to exhaust.
A district court has no inherent authority to modify a term of imprisonment;
it may do so “only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United States v. Puentes,
803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir. 2015). Prior to the First Step Act, § 3582(c)(1)(A)
allowed a district court to reduce a prisoner’s term of imprisonment only upon
motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) if it found that
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranted such a reduction.
18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). In 2018, the First Step Act amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a court
to reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment upon motion of the Director of BOP
or upon motion of the defendant “after the defendant has fully exhausted all
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion
on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 4 of 7
by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.”
18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A).
We recently held that the exhaustion requirement for a prisoner filing a motion
under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule that may be
forfeited by the government. Harris, 989 F. 3d at 911. We did not determine
whether that rule is mandatory. Id. Claim-processing rules may be mandatory in
the sense that a court must enforce the rule if a party properly raises the issue. Id.
Here, the district court likely did not err in denying Johnson’s § 3852 (c)(1)(A)
motion on the ground that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. As the
district court pointed out, Johnson filed his motion for compassionate release on May
18, 2020, while his request to the warden was dated June 30, 2020. Because Johnson
filed his motion with the court before submitting it first to the warden, Johnson did
not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Johnson concedes as much on appeal,
arguing that the district court should have waived the requirement on grounds of
futility, inadequate relief, or undue prejudice. But even assuming for purposes of
this appeal that the exhaustion requirement is not mandatory and Johnson raised an
appropriate basis or bases for the district court to set aside the requirement over the
government’s objection, the district court had the discretion to deny Johnson’s
motion on other grounds, which we discuss next. See id.
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 5 of 7
B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Johnson’s
medical conditions do not qualify him for compassionate release under § 3852
(c)(1)(A).
Under § 3582 (c)(1)(A), a court may reduce a prisoner’s sentence if it finds
that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction and that such a
reduction “is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” The applicable policy statement—section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing
Guidelines—gives three examples of extraordinary and compelling reasons
involving medical conditions: (1) a terminal illness; (2) a permanent physical or
medical condition; and (3) deteriorating physical or mental health because of the
aging process that “substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide
self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and for which
conventional treatment promises no substantial improvement.” U.S.S.G § 1B1.13,
comment (n.1); United States v. Bryant,
996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding
“that 1B1.13 is an applicable, binding policy statement for all Section 3582(c)(1)(A)
motions”). Additionally, the commentary contains a catch-all provision for other
reasons that may qualify a prisoner for a sentence reduction if, as determined by the
Director of BOP, “there exists in the defendant’s case and extraordinary and
compelling reason other than, or in combination with,” the other examples listed.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment (n.1.(D)).
5
USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 6 of 7
In Harris, the defendant filed a § 3582 (c)(1)(A) motion, arguing that her
medical conditions of lupus, scleroderma, hypertension, glaucoma, and past cases of
bronchitis and sinus infections increased her risk of contracting COVID-19.
989
F.3d 908, 910. Of the conditions that Harris argued to the district court, the CDC
listed only hypertension as an at-risk condition.
Id. at 912. But even so,
hypertension appeared as a medical condition that means an adult might be at an
increased risk—compared to conditions the CDC distinguished as ones that
necessarily put an adult at an increased risk.
Id. Accordingly, we concluded that the
district court had not abused its discretion in denying Harris’s motion for
compassionate release.
Id. (citing United States v. Elias,
984 F.3d 515, 521 (6th
Cir. 2021) (affirming the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s motion for
compassionate release for a prisoner who argued that her hypertension put her at an
increased risk of death from COVID-19.)
Here, like the movant in Harris, Johnson did not demonstrate that his
prediabetes and hypertension created exigent circumstances during the COVID-19
pandemic that would put his health at serious risk and warrant compassionate
release. See 989 F.3d at 912. Johnson’s hypertension was on the list of conditions
that might put an adult at an increased risk, but that does not necessarily amount to
an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate release. See id.
(“hypertension appears on the CDC’s list of conditions, and it appears only as one
6
USCA11 Case: 20-13245 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 7 of 7
that means an adult ‘might be at an increased risk’”). Indeed, although Johnson
unfortunately contracted the virus, he fortunately was asymptomatic and had
recovered by the time the district court denied his motion for compassionate release.
III.
For these reasons, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Johnson relief based on his presented medical conditions. Nor did it abuse
its discretion when it denied the related motion for reconsideration that presented no
new arguments or medical conditions that would further his case.
AFFIRMED.
7
