United States v. Gregory Richardson ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 22-13990    Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 07/05/2023   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 22-13990
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    GREGORY RICHARDSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60294-RNS-1
    ____________________
    USCA11 Case: 22-13990      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 07/05/2023     Page: 2 of 3
    2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13990
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
    cuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of
    his second motion for compassionate release, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court failed to provide
    him procedural due process by denying his motion for compassion-
    ate release before he filed his reply to the government’s response.
    We discern no due-process violation, so we affirm.
    The docket reflects that Richardson’s reply was due on Oc-
    tober 11, 2022. Yet he did not sign and deliver his reply to prison
    officials for mailing until October 18, 2022, the same day that the
    district court denied his motion. The district court received his re-
    ply on November 2, 2022, construed the reply as a motion for re-
    consideration, and denied reconsideration.
    The district court was not to blame for Richardson’s failure
    to file a timely reply. And he cites no binding authority establishing
    that due process required the district court to wait beyond the filing
    deadline before denying his motion. Further, Richardson does not
    dispute and has abandoned any challenge that he could have made
    to the findings by the district court that his medical conditions did
    not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons, he failed to
    prove that he would not pose a danger to the public, and he failed
    to establish that the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C.
    USCA11 Case: 22-13990     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023    Page: 3 of 3
    22-13990               Opinion of the Court                        3
    § 3553(a), weighed in favor of reducing his sentence. Sapuppo v. All-
    state Floridian Ins. Co., 
    739 F.3d 678
    , 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
    We AFFIRM the denial of Richardson’s motion for compas-
    sionate release.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-13990

Filed Date: 7/5/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/5/2023