USCA11 Case: 21-10585 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10585
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:91-cr-10021-JLK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ROMEU,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 29, 2021)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In 2020, Jose Romeu, a federal prisoner, moved for compassionate release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under that provision, a district court
may reduce a sentence “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 21-10585 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 2 of 5
§ 3553(a)] to the extent they are applicable,” if the court finds that “extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and that the reduction is
consistent with the applicable policy statement in United States Sentencing
Guideline § 1B1.13. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Bryant,
996 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2021). In his motion, Romeu said his medical
condition, diabetes, was an extraordinary and compelling reason because it was a
serious condition substantially diminishing his ability to provide self-care in light
of COVID-19. See USSG § 1B1.13 n.1(A)(ii). Romeu also said his age, 67 years
old at the time of his motion, was an extraordinary and compelling reason because
he was “experiencing a serious deterioration in physical health because of the
aging process.” See USSG § 1B1.13 n.1(B). Finally, he argued that the district
court had discretion to consider extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond
those expressly enumerated in section 1B1.13, such as his complete rehabilitation
and model disciplinary record while in prison. Separately, Romeu argued that the
section 3553(a) factors supported compassionate release.
The district court denied Romeu’s motion for compassionate release. The
court found “that [Romeu’s] health does not present ‘extraordinary and
compelling’ factors that warrant release at this time,” as his “medical problems are
well-maintained in prison and can be managed” by the Bureau of Prisons. And
because the court found that Romeu’s “medical issues are not ‘extraordinary and
2
USCA11 Case: 21-10585 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 3 of 5
compelling,’” it said it “need not analyze the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553.” The court did not address Romeu’s argument that his age was an
extraordinary and compelling reason.
On appeal, Romeu says the district court erred by failing to consider the
section 3553(a) factors and by failing to consider the other extraordinary and
compelling reasons he proffered, such as his age. In response, the government
moves this Court to summarily vacate the district court’s ruling and remand for
further proceedings. The government says the district court failed to consider the
section 3553(a) factors as required by this Court’s recent decision in United States
v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 2021). The government also moves to stay the
briefing schedule pending resolution of its motion.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying a motion
for compassionate release. Cook, 998 F.3d at 1183. “[A]n order granting or
denying compassionate release, in light of the record, must indicate that the court
considered the applicable factors.” Id. at 1184 (quotation marks omitted and
alteration adopted). This means that, in addition to considering whether the
movant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court “must
also consider all applicable § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Otherwise, we cannot conduct
meaningful appellate review and “must vacate and remand the case to the district
court.” Id. at 1184–85. In Cook, the district court denied the defendant’s motion
3
USCA11 Case: 21-10585 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 4 of 5
for compassionate release because it found his age and medical conditions were
not extraordinary and compelling reasons. Id. at 1183. This Court vacated and
remanded the case to the district court because the record did “not demonstrate that
the district court considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors,” and thus the Court
could not conduct meaningful appellate review. Id. at 1185–86.
Here, summary disposition is appropriate because “the result is clear as a
matter of law so . . . there can be no substantial question as to the outcome.”
Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1076 n.6 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
As Romeu argues, and as the government acknowledges, the record does not show
the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors. In fact, the district court
expressly said it “need not analyze the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553”
because it found Romeu’s “medical issues are not ‘extraordinary and compelling.’”
But as Cook makes clear, the district court needed to “also consider all applicable
§ 3553(a) factors.” Cook, 998 F.3d at 1184. As in Cook, this record is insufficient
to allow for meaningful appellate review, so we must vacate and remand this case
to the district court.1 Id. at 1185–86.
1
The record does not indicate the district court considered whether Romeu’s age was an
extraordinary and compelling reason justifying compassionate release. See USSG § 1B1.13
n.1(B). As such, we cannot conduct meaningful appellate review for this reason as well.
4
USCA11 Case: 21-10585 Date Filed: 07/29/2021 Page: 5 of 5
Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary vacatur and remand to
the district court is GRANTED and its motion to stay the briefing schedule is
DENIED as moot.
5
United States v. Jose Romeu
Combined Opinion