USCA11 Case: 20-12581 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12581 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20587-RNS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO MACLI, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (February 3. 2021) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12581 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 2 of 7 Antonio Macli, proceeding pro se, appeals following the district court’s denial of his renewed motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”). In 2012, a federal grand jury returned a 44-count superseding indictment charging Macli, his two children and others with conspiracies to commit health care fraud, to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and to commit money laundering, as well as substantive violations related to the conspiracies. United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 953-54, 956 (11th Cir. 2015). As we explained in their direct appeal, Macli and others “concocted and engaged in a pernicious scheme to defraud Medicare and preyed upon vulnerable victims,” which included chronic substance abusers, elderly with dementia, Haitian patients looking for immigration benefits, and paid patients. Id. at 951-52. The court sentenced Macli within the guidelines range to a total of 30 years in prison, and ordered him to pay $11,481,593.43 in restitution, jointly and severally with other co- defendants. Id. at 957. Several years into his sentence, Macli filed the instant renewed motion seeking compassionate release from the district court, alleging that in light of his advanced age of 81 years old and his medical conditions, including atrial fibrillation and bradycardia, he was at a greater risk of death from COVID-19. The district court denied the motion. After thorough review, we affirm. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12581 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 3 of 7 We review de novo whether a district court had the authority to modify a term of imprisonment. United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020). However, because section 3582(c)(1)(A) uses the permissive term “may” when it grants district courts the authority to reduce a term of imprisonment for extraordinary and compelling reasons, we review a denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., id. (reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(1)(B) based on a retroactive statutory change); United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive amendment to the guidelines). 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. United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015). We review arguments ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals