USCA11 Case: 20-13162 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13162
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60256-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAIME FERNANDO SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 8, 2021)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13162 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Jaime Fernando Sanchez, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s
denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). After
careful review, we affirm.
I.
Sanchez is serving a 168-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to
conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in 2014. In June 2020, Sanchez sought
compassionate release, arguing that a variety of factors constituted extraordinary
and compelling reasons warranting his release. As relevant to this appeal, he
argued that: (1) his medical conditions rendered him particularly vulnerable to
COVID-19; and (2) his sentence was much harsher than comparable defendants,
constituting an unwarranted sentencing disparity.
The district court denied Sanchez’s motion. The district court reasoned first
that it was bound by the extraordinary and compelling reasons listed in United
States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13, which describes age, familial, and medical
reasons that warrant release. And while Sanchez does have medical problems,
including that he is a former smoker, HIV-positive, and suffers from “muscle
wasting,” those conditions do not qualify him for relief under the policy statement.
Second, the district court explained that Sanchez’s sentence did not reflect a
sentencing disparity, because the ostensible comparator defendant was not eligible
for the same enhancements as Sanchez and had benefited from a substantial
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13162 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 3 of 5
downward variance as recommended by the government. This is Sanchez’s
appeal.
II.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court abuses its discretion
when it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures, or makes
clearly erroneous findings of fact. United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288, 1293
(11th Cir. 2015).
Sanchez makes two arguments on appeal. First, he says the district court
abused its discretion when it found that his medical conditions did not warrant
compassionate release. Second, he says the district court erred in finding that he
was not the victim of an unwarranted sentencing disparity. We address each in
turn.
First, a defendant’s medical conditions present extraordinary and
compelling reasons warranting compassionate release only when the conditions
“substantially diminish[] the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the
environment of a correctional facility” and the defendant is not expected to recover
from the conditions. USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii). The government has
recognized that a number of conditions that would not ordinarily meet that
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13162 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 4 of 5
standard currently constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
release as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These include numerous
respiratory conditions, heart conditions, smoking, diabetes, and other chronic
illnesses. But even taking into account these additional medical conditions,
Sanchez does not meet the standard for compassionate release due to a medical
condition. While he is a former smoker, there is no evidence that he currently
smokes or has any underlying lung disease. Sanchez is HIV-positive, but he has
not indicated that he is unable to provide self-care while incarcerated and his
condition appears stable. Sanchez also notes that he is suffering from muscle
wasting, but again does not explain how he is unable to provide self-care or how
those conditions make him more vulnerable to COVID-19.
Second, the district court did not err when it determined that Sanchez did not
suffer an unwarranted sentencing disparity. Sanchez argues that his sentence is
similar to those of two defendants whose crimes resulted in much higher loss
amounts than his own. At the same time, he points to another defendant whose
loss amount was much closer to his and was sentenced to only 25 months’
imprisonment. But when considering sentencing disparities, we cannot look at loss
amount in a vacuum. And Sanchez ignores the aggravating factors in his case that
differentiate him from defendants who received lower sentences. Most notably,
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13162 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 5 of 5
after pleading guilty, Sanchez breached his plea agreement by continuing his
criminal activity, falsely implicating others, and destroying evidence.
Finally, to the extent Sanchez argues that the alleged sentencing disparity
between him and other similar defendants constitutes an extraordinary and
compelling reason warranting compassionate release, that is not a reason the
district court can consider. As a panel of this Court recently held in United States
v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021), the district court is limited to
considering those “extraordinary and compelling” reasons outlined in Sentencing
Guideline Policy Statement § 1B1.13 and the accompanying application note. Id.
at 1252. And while the policy statement contains a provision allowing defendants
to present “other” reasons unrelated to age, family, and medical conditions, those
“other” reasons must be approved by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Id. at 1262–
64. The purported sentencing disparity in Sanchez’s case is neither an age, family,
or medical condition, nor has BOP determined that it is an “other” reason
warranting compassionate release. Therefore, even if Sanchez were correct that his
sentence reflected an unwarranted sentencing disparity, that could not support his
motion for compassionate release.
AFFIRMED.
5