USCA11 Case: 20-12722 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12722
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00135-JDW-JSS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY J. KLATCH, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 19, 2021)
Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Klatch, II, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Klatch argues that the district
USCA11 Case: 20-12722 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 2 of 4
court erred in determining that his medical conditions coupled with the spread of
COVID-19 within the facility where he is currently housed did not warrant
compassionate release. We disagree and affirm.
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) provides that if certain eligibility criteria are met, a
district court “may reduce a term of imprisonment.” Because the statute expressly
gives the district court discretion in granting or denying an eligible defendant’s
request for a reduced sentence, we review its denial of an authorized reduction for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020)
(applying the abuse of discretion standard to a denial of an eligible defendant’s
request for a reduced sentence under an analogous provision of the First Step Act);
see also United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009) (applying the
abuse of discretion standard to a denial of a request for a reduced sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). A district court abuses its discretion by applying the incorrect
legal standard, following improper procedures in making its determination, or
making clearly erroneous factual findings. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d
1178, 1194 (11th Cir. 2011).
The First Step Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a district court
to reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment, not only upon motion of the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons, but also upon motion of the defendant. See First Step Act
§ 603; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Before bringing such a motion, however, a
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12722 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 3 of 4
defendant must first ask the BOP to bring a motion on his behalf. Id. The defendant
can file a motion for compassionate relief on his own behalf only if (1) the BOP
refuses to bring the motion and the defendant has exhausted all administrative
remedies, or (2) the BOP fails to answer the defendant within thirty days. See id. The
district court then must perform a “two-step inquiry.” Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 826 (2010). First, it must determine if there are “extraordinary and
compelling” reasons for a reduction “consistent with applicable policy
statements”—the “eligibility” determinations. See id. at 825–27; 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). Next, the court “consider[s] any applicable § 3553(a) factors and
determine[s] whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the
policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the particular
circumstances of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.
Here, the district court denied Klatch’s motion for reduction of sentence for
three independently sufficient reasons: (1) failure to exhaust all administrative
remedies; (2) failure to show extraordinary and compelling reasons; and (3) as an
exercise of the court’s discretion. Even were we to assume that Klatch properly
exhausted all administrative remedies and is eligible for compassionate release, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Klatch’s motion for reduction of
sentence. The court did not apply an incorrect legal standard or fail to follow proper
procedures in reaching its determination. And given Klatch’s failure to present
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12722 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 Page: 4 of 4
supporting medical records and reliance on previously rejected claims, none of the
district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4