USCA11 Case: 20-13535 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13535
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cr-00068-PGB-DCI-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINCENT B. MCGHEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 21, 2021)
Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13535 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 2 of 6
Vincent McGhee is serving a 94-month prison sentence, imposed in January
2018, for his role as the leader of a scheme to defraud retail stores using stolen
identities. In August 2020, McGhee filed a motion seeking compassionate release
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by § 603(b) of the First Step Act of
2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), alleging that he was highly
susceptible to severe illness from COVID-19 because of medical conditions
including hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, coronary artery disease, and a
family history of strokes. He further stated that early release was warranted in light
of his rehabilitation efforts in prison, his family and employment circumstances, and
the Bureau of Prisons’s finding that he was at “minimal” risk to reoffend. 1
The district court denied McGhee’s motion, reasoning that his medical
conditions, even in light of the risks posed by COVID-19 in prison, did not constitute
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief, as required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Then, noting that McGhee had “11 prior felony convictions,” the court further found
that relief was not warranted in any case because granting “release after serving 40%
of his sentence would undermine the statutory purposes of sentencing.”
On appeal, McGhee argues that the district court failed to adequately explain
its decision or to consider his arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
1
McGhee also sought release to home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). But he does
not challenge the district court’s denial of that request on appeal, so we do not discuss it further.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13535 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 3 of 6
factors, including his postconviction behavior and rehabilitation, the amount of his
sentence he had served, his health and risk profiles, and the conditions at his facility,
Jesup Satellite Low. He also challenges the court’s determination that he did not
present an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief.
We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).
The court has a “range of choice,” and we cannot reverse just because we might have
decided the matter differently had it been our call to make. Id. Nevertheless,
a district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows
improper procedures in making the determination, makes findings of fact that are
clearly erroneous, or commits a clear error of judgment. Id. at 911–12. A district
court also abuses its discretion if it fails to “explain its sentencing adequately enough
to allow for meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993,
997 (11th Cir. 2017). We liberally construe pro se filings. United States v. Webb,
565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009).
Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act, a district court may
grant a defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction “if it finds that . . . extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and that a “reduction is consistent
with applicable policy statements” in the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th Cir.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13535 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 4 of 6
2021), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-1732 (U.S. June 15, 2021) (holding that the
policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B.13 is “applicable” and therefore governs all
motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). The court also must consider “all applicable”
§ 3553(a) factors, or it abuses its discretion. United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180,
1184 (11th Cir. 2021).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McGhee’s
motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act. To start, the record is
adequate for appellate review. In denying his motion, the court understood that
McGhee was seeking early release based primarily on “his risk for an adverse
outcome should he contract COVID-19” in light of his medical conditions. It then
explained that his medical conditions did not elevate his risk from COVID-19 to the
level of an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. The court stated that
the risk of contracting COVID-19 in prison alone was not enough, that his medical
conditions—to the extent they were supported by his medical records—were being
treated in custody, and that the BOP had taken steps to minimize the risk of COVID-
19 transmission in its facilities and “ha[d] effectively managed COVID-19” at Jesup
Satellite Low. Separate from this analysis, the district court reasoned that the
§ 3553(a) factors weighed against release because McGhee had 11 prior felony
convictions and “release after serving 40% of his sentence would undermine the
statutory purposes of sentencing,” specifically deterrence.
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13535 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 5 of 6
While the district court did not address each of McGhee’s arguments in detail,
it did more than enough to show that it “considered the parties’ arguments” and the
§ 3553(a) factors and “ha[d] a reasoned basis” for its decision. United States v.
Potts, 997 F.3d 1142, 1145 (11th Cir. 2021). The court’s explanation was adequate
to permit meaningful appellate review. See id.; Johnson, 877 F.3d at 997.
Next, we agree with the government that it is unnecessary to determine here
whether McGhee’s medical conditions, coupled with the pandemic, constitute an
extraordinary and compelling basis for a sentence reduction.2 That’s because, even
assuming they do, the district court reasonably concluded that early release was not
warranted based on the § 3553(a) factors.
When the district court entered its order, McGhee had served only 40% of his
sentence. In light of that fact, the court concluded that releasing McGhee would
“undermine the statutory purposes of sentencing,” explicitly referencing his 11 prior
convictions and the need to deter him from reoffending. Moreover, the same judge
2
As the government notes, on March 29, 2021, while this case was on appeal, the CDC
issued revised guidance relating to medical conditions and COVID-19, modifying the language it
used to categorize medical risk factors for various listed conditions, including hypertension. See
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, People with Certain Medical Conditions,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-
conditions.html (last visited Sept. 2, 2021). This revised guidance also postdates our decision in
United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021), which relied on the CDC’s prior
guidance to hold that hypertension, coupled with the risk of COVID-19, was not sufficient to
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Because it does not
matter to the ultimate outcome, we need not consider whether the revised guidance affects the
determination of an extraordinary and compelling reason in McGhee’s case.
5
USCA11 Case: 20-13535 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 6 of 6
who originally sentenced McGhee denied his compassionate-release motion, so the
judge would have been familiar with the details of McGhee’s case, the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors, and the reasons for the original sentence. See United States v.
Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 1997) (concluding that the court
adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors in part because “the same district court
judge who sentenced Defendant originally was the one who declined to resentence
him”).
McGhee points to other factors that may favor early release, but the weight to
give any of the § 3553(a) factors was committed to the district court’s discretion,
United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016), and the court did
not commit a clear error of judgment or otherwise abuse its discretion in concluding
that early release was not warranted. See Harris, 989 F.3d 911–12.
For these reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.3
3
McGhee’s motion to expedite this appeal is DENIED as moot.
6