USCA11 Case: 21-12204 Date Filed: 09/03/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-12204
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cr-00605-PAS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MANUEL SALDANA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 3, 2021)
Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Saldana, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals following the district
court’s denial of his amended motion for compassionate release under Section 603
of the First Step Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Saldana and the
USCA11 Case: 21-12204 Date Filed: 09/03/2021 Page: 2 of 4
government have filed a joint motion for summary reversal, asserting that the district
court abused its discretion because it denied Saldana’s amended motion based on a
clearly erroneous factual finding.
Summary disposition is appropriate, in part, where “the position of one of the
parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question
as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s Section 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th
Cir. 2021). As relevant here, a district court abuses its discretion if it “makes findings
of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id.
District courts lack the 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, 606 (11th Cir. 2015). For example, a district court may reduce a
sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons pursuant to
Section 3582(c)(1)(A). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In the context of
compassionate release, the statute requires exhaustion of remedies and otherwise
provides that:
[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the [BOP], or upon motion
of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion
on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
2
USCA11 Case: 21-12204 Date Filed: 09/03/2021 Page: 3 of 4
such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is
earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the
factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a) to the extent that they
are applicable, if it finds that—extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction[.]
Id. Additionally, the district court must find that a reduction is consistent with the
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The policy statements applicable to Section 3582(c)(1)(A) are found in
Section 1B1.13. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The commentary to Section 1B1.13 states that
extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under any of the circumstances listed,
provided that the court determines that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of
any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), and that
the reduction is consistent with the policy statement. See id. § 1B1.13 & cmt. n.1.
For example, a defendant’s medical condition may warrant a sentence reduction if
he is suffering from a serious physical or medical condition that substantially
diminishes his ability to provide self-care in prison and from which he is not
expected to recover. Id. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii)(I).
Here, as the parties agree, the district court made a finding of fact that was
clearly erroneous. Specifically, the district court found that Saldana had indicated
that he “ha[d] already contracted and recovered from” COVID-19, even though there
was no evidence in his motion, or the remaining record, that he ever had the virus.
3
USCA11 Case: 21-12204 Date Filed: 09/03/2021 Page: 4 of 4
In fact, Saldana repeatedly argued that he was at a higher risk of severe illness or
death “should he contract COVID-19.” Rather, it appears that the district court may
have confused his medical history with his brother and codefendant Francisco’s
history, who did inform it that he had tested positive for COVID-19. In any event, it
is undisputed that Saldana never contracted the virus. Thus, the district court abused
its discretion in denying his amended motion for compassionate release for this
reason. See Harris, 989 F.3d at 911.
Accordingly, because the parties’ position is correct as a matter of law, we
GRANT the joint motion for summary reversal and REMAND for the district court
to consider whether to grant or deny the motion for compassionate release. See
Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. To be clear, we take no position on
whether the court should grant or deny the motion for compassionate release on
remand.
4