USCA11 Case: 20-13131 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13131
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cr-00005-PGB-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VALENTINE OKONKWO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 29, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and LUCK, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13131 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Valentine Okonkwo, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte denial
of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district
court ruled that the statutory sentencing factors weighed against granting Okonkwo
a sentence reduction. See id. § 3553(a). We affirm.
Okonkwo moved to reduce his sentence based on the First Step Act of 2018.
Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018). He sought a reduction
based on his age of 58, his medical conditions of hypertension and “cardiac
abnormalities,” and his risk of being exposed to COVID-19 at FCI Coleman Low.
Okonkwo acknowledged that he had been convicted of conspiring to distribute and
of distributing oxycodone from his pharmacy, but he contended that he had been
the “victim of a scam because fraudsters tricked him when he called the phone
number on each prescription to verify [the] legitimacy of the prescription.” He
argued that he no longer posed a danger to the public because his pharmacy had
closed and he had taken classes “beneficial for behavioral modification.”
The district court sua sponte denied Okonkwo’s motion. The district court
determined that Okonkwo’s conditions of “hypertension, heart disease and left
ventricular hypertrophy,” which “were being treated with medicine and follow up
imaging,” “when considered in the context of the [Bureau of Prisons] response to
the pandemic, do not constitute ‘extraordinary and compelling circumstances’ that
warrant his immediate release.” The district court also determined that Okonkwo’s
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13131 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 3 of 5
“possibility of exposure to COVID-19 is not enough to justify [his] release”
because “[t]he sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 do not favor [his]
release.” The district court stated that Okonkwo’s “offense of conviction is serious
and contributed to the wide-spread abuse of Oxycodone” by “illegally fill[ing]
3,383 prescriptions totaling 563,000 pills” and “dispens[ing] more Oxycodone than
the local Publix, Wal-Mart, and CVS combined” “between December 2009 and
April 2012.” The district court also stated that Okonkwo “continues to present a
danger to the community” because he “denie[d] responsibility for his crimes”
despite “overwhelming” evidence against him and when “falsified documents,
patently fraudulent prescriptions, and undercover recordings” negated his argument
that he was framed.
We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release 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. (quoting Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th
Cir. 2019)). “To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based on
multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated
ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13131 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 4 of 5
A district “court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed” except under certain circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see United
States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020). Section 3582(c), as
amended by the First Step Act, gives the district court discretion to “reduce the
term of imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)
to the extent that they are applicable” if a reduction is warranted for “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” and “is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). So the district
court may deny a motion to reduce because no “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” exist, because relief is inappropriate based on the statutory sentencing
factors, or for both reasons.
We need not address Okonkwo’s argument that he was entitled to relief for
extraordinary and compelling reasons because we can affirm on the alternative
ground stated by the district court that the statutory sentencing factors weighed
against his early release. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. The district court identified
the sentencing factors that supported its decision and explained why those factors
weighed against early release. It accorded substantial weight to the nature and
circumstances of Okonkwo’s offense and reasoned that his refusal to accept
responsibility posed a continuing danger to the public and that continued
imprisonment was required to deter him from committing future similar crimes and
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13131 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 5 of 5
to promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Okonkwo challenges the
determination that the seriousness of his offense outweighed his health issues, but
“[t]he weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court,” United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309
(11th Cir. 2016). We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by
denying Okonkwo’s motion.
We AFFIRM the denial of Okonkwo’s motion for compassionate release.
5