USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13795
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00332-VMC-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AHMAD MCCASLIN,
a.k.a. Sean,
a.k.a. Buddy,
a.k.a. Squirrel,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 12, 2021)
Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 2 of 4
Ahmad McCaslin, acting pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
McCaslin moved for compassionate release in August 2020. His pro se
motion was on a form that included a checklist of empty boxes next to potentially
applicable “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” which corresponded with the
reasons listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 n.1. McCaslin checked none of those boxes.
Instead, he argued that he should receive compassionate release because his
underlying health condition of hypertension exposed him to an increased risk of
severe illness if he contracted COVID-19. The district court denied his motion
because it found that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required
by the statute.
One day after the court issued that order, McCaslin filed what he labeled as a
“Notice of Administrative Remedy for Compassionate Release.” The filing
included emails that he claimed showed he had requested the prison warden grant
him compassionate release. The district court construed the filing as a motion for
reconsideration and ruled that the emails still did not show exhaustion because they
did not show a request for compassionate release. The court also ruled in the
alternative that even if McCaslin had exhausted his administrative remedies, he
had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release
under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 3 of 4
McCaslin’s initial brief contends only that he provided the district court with
enough information to show that he had exhausted his administrative remedies.
The government responds that the district court’s order should be affirmed because
McCaslin has abandoned any challenge to the court’s alternative ruling on the
merits, but that in any event the alternative ruling was correct.
We review only for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of
McCaslin’s motion for reconsideration. United States v. Llewlyn, 879 F.3d 1291,
1294 (11th Cir. 2018). But we review de novo “determinations about a
defendant’s eligibility for a § 3582(c) sentence reduction.” United States v.
Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021).
We will assume that McCaslin exhausted his administrative remedies and
did not abandon his challenge to the district court’s alternative ruling, because it
doesn’t matter; the court did not err in ruling that he was ineligible for
compassionate release. The court reasoned that McCaslin had not shown
extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release because he had
not alleged or shown that his circumstances fall within any of the circumstances
listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. That was correct. We have held that
§ 1B1.13’s first application note lists the exhaustive set of “extraordinary and
compelling” circumstances allowing for compassionate release. See Bryant, 996
F.3d at 1263. “Because [McCaslin’s] motion does not fall within any of the
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13795 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 Page: 4 of 4
reasons that [§] 1B1.13 identifies as ‘extraordinary and compelling,’ the district
court correctly denied his motion for a reduction of his sentence.” Id. at 1265; see
also United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming the
district court's conclusion that the prisoner’s hypertension and other medical
conditions were not an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for granting
compassionate release).
AFFIRMED.
4