USCA11 Case: 20-14059 Date Filed: 06/09/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14059
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cr-60106-DMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MONTE JANWATANAGOOL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 9, 2021)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-14059 Date Filed: 06/09/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Monte Janwatanagool, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Janwatanagool argues that the district court abused its discretion
when it denied his compassionate-release motion because it did not make an
independent assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
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). “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.
A district court has no inherent authority to modify a defendant’s sentence
and may do so “only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United States v.
Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th Cir. 2015). A district court may grant a
prisoner’s motion for compassionate release, “after considering the factors set forth
in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that . . .
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a
reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The policy statements applicable to
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) are found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and district courts may not reduce
a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction would be consistent with
2
USCA11 Case: 20-14059 Date Filed: 06/09/2021 Page: 3 of 3
§ 1B1.13. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1262
(11th Cir. 2021).
We recently held that, in addition to determining whether a movant has
offered extraordinary and compelling reasons and whether a reduction or release
would be consistent with the policy statement in § 1B1.13, a district court must
also consider “all applicable” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when it grants or denies
a motion for compassionate release. United States v. Cook, No. 20-13293, slip op.
at 5–6 (11th Cir. May 27, 2021). A district court is not required to articulate its
findings and reasonings in great detail, but, when we consider a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
motion, we “cannot engage in meaningful appellate review and must vacate and
remand” if the record does not reflect that the district court considered the
applicable factors. Id. at 9.
Because the district court’s order did not reflect that it considered any of the
applicable § 3553(a) factors in denying Janwatanagool’s motion for compassionate
release, the record was not adequate to allow for meaningful appellate review.
Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the motion and remand this matter for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3