USCA11 Case: 22-12157 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12157
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BARRINGTON MILLER,
a.k.a. Doggie,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cr-00147-LGW-CLR-4
USCA11 Case: 22-12157 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12157
____________________
Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Barrington Miller appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. section
3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm.
Miller is serving a ten-year sentence for various drug of-
fenses. He moved for compassionate release because of the coro-
navirus pandemic, arguing that there were “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” for his release. His medical conditions, Miller
asserted—including obesity, pre-diabetes, and hypertension—put
him at an increased risk for complications if he contracted the coro-
navirus. Miller also contended that, regardless of his vaccination
status, the prison lockdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic pre-
vented him from adequately managing his hypertension and pre-
diabetes through diet and exercise, which led to high blood pres-
sure. Finally, he argued that he wasn’t a danger to the community,
based on his nonviolent criminal history and minimal disciplinary
record while incarcerated, and that the purposes of the sec-
tion 3553(a) factors already had been met by the portion of his sen-
tence already served.
The government responded that the district court should
deny Miller’s compassionate release motion because his medical
conditions didn’t substantially diminish his ability to engage in self-
care in prison, his medical conditions weren’t extraordinary and
USCA11 Case: 22-12157 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023 Page: 3 of 6
22-12157 Opinion of the Court 3
compelling, he already had received a downward variance at sen-
tencing, and he hadn’t shown that the prison was unable to treat
him adequately.
The district court denied Miller’s compassionate release mo-
tion because (1) he didn’t show that his medical condition substan-
tially diminished his ability to engage in self-care, (2) his medical
condition wasn’t extraordinary and compelling, and (3) after con-
sidering the section 3553(a) factors, he shouldn’t be released two
and one-half years early.
We review the district court’s denial of a compassionate re-
lease request for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989
F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion
when it commits a clear error of judgment, “applies an incorrect
legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the deter-
mination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id.
at 911–12 (citations omitted). Abuse of discretion review “means
that the district court had a ‘range of choice’ and that we cannot
reverse just because we might have come to a different conclusion
had it been our call to make.” Id. at 912.
Miller moved for compassionate release under section
3582(c)(1)(A), which provides that
the court, upon motion of . . . the defendant . . . may
reduce the term of imprisonment . . . , after consider-
ing the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
that they are applicable, if it finds that . . .
USCA11 Case: 22-12157 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12157
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent
with applicable policy statements issued by the [s]en-
tencing [c]ommission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Under this provision, “a district court may reduce a term of
imprisonment if (1) the [section] 3553(a) sentencing factors favor
doing so, (2) there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for
doing so, and[ ] . . . (3) doing so wouldn’t endanger any person or
the community within the meaning of [guideline section] 1B1.13’s
policy statement.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1235
(11th Cir. 2021) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). “Because all
three conditions—i.e., support in the [section] 3553(a) factors, ex-
traordinary and compelling reasons, and adherence to [section]
1B1.13’s policy statement—are necessary, the absence of even one
would foreclose a sentence reduction.” Id. at 1237–38.
On appeal, Miller argues that the district court abused its dis-
cretion in determining that he hadn’t presented an “extraordinary
and compelling reason” for compassionate release and that the sec-
tion 3553(a) factors didn’t warrant his early release. The district
court, Miller contends, should’ve relied on the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s guidelines and the Department of Jus-
tice’s internal guidance rather than on guideline section 1B1.13. In
support, Miller relies on United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th
Cir. 2021) (holding that section 1B1.13 applies only to motions of
USCA11 Case: 22-12157 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023 Page: 5 of 6
22-12157 Opinion of the Court 5
the Bureau of Prisons), which he misidentifies as an Eleventh Cir-
cuit case.
Regardless of what the Fifth Circuit has said on the issue, the
district court had to rely on guideline section 1B1.13 because we’ve
said so. “Section 1B1.13’s policy statement is applicable to all mo-
tions under [section] 3582(c)(1)(A), and, accordingly, district courts
may not reduce a sentence under [s]ection 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a
reduction would be consistent with [guideline section] 1B1.13.”
Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237 (quotation omitted). Here, compassionate
release wouldn’t be consistent with guideline section 1B1.13.
Section 1B1.13 provides that, in some limited circumstances,
a defendant’s medical condition may be an extraordinary and com-
pelling reason for compassionate release. The defendant must
show either that he’s: (1) “suffering from a terminal illness,” or (2)
“suffering from a serious physical or medical condition” or “a seri-
ous functional or cognitive impairment” or “experiencing deterio-
rating physical or mental health because of the aging process” and
that the condition, impairment, or deterioration “substantially di-
minishes” his “ability” to “provide self-care” in prison and he “is
not expected to recover.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A).
Miller failed to show that his obesity, pre-diabetes, and hy-
pertension substantially diminished his ability to provide self-care
in prison. The record demonstrates that Miller has been able to
take prescription medications and visit the chronic care clinic reg-
ularly to manage his medical complications. So, the district court
didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that Miller hadn’t
USCA11 Case: 22-12157 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12157
presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassion-
ate release. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38.
Even if Miller had made this showing, the district court
didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that compassionate re-
lease wasn’t warranted under the section 3553(a) factors. The dis-
trict court considered Miller’s mitigating arguments regarding his
health concerns, that he didn’t pose a danger to the community,
and that the purposes of section 3553(a) already had been served.
But the district court determined that, in light of the facts of the
case, the factors didn’t warrant a sentence reduction. As was re-
quired, the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors by
specifically acknowledging the nature and circumstances of the of-
fense and observing that numerous firearms and a large amount of
marijuana were attributed to Miller. See United States v. Cook,
998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court also found
that releasing Miller early wouldn’t reflect the seriousness of his
offenses or the needs to promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment, or afford adequate deterrence.
For these reasons, the district court didn’t abuse its discre-
tion in denying Miller’s motion.
AFFIRMED.