USCA11 Case: 21-11660 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11660 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDUARDO EMILIO ORTIZ-CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant. USCA11 Case: 21-11660 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11660 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00394-SCB-AEP-7 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eduardo Ortiz-Cervantes (“Ortiz”), a federal prisoner pro- ceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion asking it to reconsider its order denying his motion for compas- sionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 1 In his ini- tial brief, Ortiz identifies one issue on appeal—whether the dis- trict court abused its discretion in denying his compassionate re- lease motion—but he advances several arguments to that effect. First, he argues that the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to decide whether he had shown extraordinary and 1 Ortiz’s notice of appeal specifies that he is appealing the district court’s de- nial of his motion for reconsideration of its earlier denial of his motion for compassionate release. The Government concedes, though, that we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Ortiz’s underlying motion for compassionate release. Accordingly, we will proceed as though Ortiz directly appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. USCA11 Case: 21-11660 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 3 of 9 21-11660 Opinion of the Court 3 compelling reasons warranting compassionate release because that policy statement is outdated and non-binding. Second, he contends that the court abused its discretion by denying his com- passionate release motion before the Government could respond. Third, he asserts that it abused its discretion by failing to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and finding that they weighed against compassionate release. Finally, he argues that the district court erred by considering the fact that he is a non- citizen subject to an immigration detainer. I. Before turning to Ortiz’s several arguments on appeal, we will first outline our standard of review in compassionate release appeals. We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). This standard of review “is not simply a rubber stamp.” United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1104 (11th Cir. 2009) (Barkett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). “A court must explain its sentencing de- cisions adequately enough to allow for meaningful appellate re- view.” Id. This standard of review, though, does afford district courts a “range of choice,” and we “cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different conclusion.” Harris, 989 F.3d at 912 (quoting Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 934 (11th Cir. 2007)). A …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals