USCA11 Case: 20-13546 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13546
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00108-JSM-AAS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT A. MCCHRISTIAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 30, 2021)
Before NEWSOM, LAGOA and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13546 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Robert A. McChristian, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial
of his compassionate-release motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues
that the district court abused its discretion by finding that he failed to establish that
his type II diabetes, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the alleged illegality of his
sentence were extraordinary and compelling reasons that warranted his release.
After careful review, we affirm.
I
In 2013, McChristian pleaded guilty to one count of carrying, using, and
brandishing firearms and discharging a firearm that is a destructive device during
and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)-
(iii). He was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised
release.
In June 2020, McChristian, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for
compassionate release. He argued that he was at a high-risk of contracting
COVID-19 because of his type II diabetes and that this was an extraordinary and
compelling reason to reduce his sentence. The district court denied his motion, and
he now appeals. 1
1
We review motions for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse of discretion.
See 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. United States v. Khan, 794
F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015).
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13546 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 3 of 5
II
On appeal, McChristian argues that he requires daily treatment with insulin
and other medications to treat his type II diabetes and that the BOP has taken
insufficient measures to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. He also argues
that the district court improperly applied the old version of the compassionate-
release statute to deny his motion and that the district court improperly failed to
consider the legality of his sentence in denying his motion.
The district court was permitted to reduce Harris’s sentence if it found,
among other things, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” it. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 2 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 contains the policy statement for
sentence modifications under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), requiring a district court
to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction and that the defendant
is not a danger to the community. The commentary to that policy statement lists
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for granting a sentencing reduction,
including considerations related to medical conditions. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13,
comment (n.1). This Court recently held that, notwithstanding the First Step Act’s
amendments to § 3582(c)(1)(A), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 remains applicable to
2
In the district court, the government argued that McChristian failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and the district court agreed. But because this Court recently held that
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is non-jurisdictional and because the government does
not raise exhaustion on appeal, we decline to address it. See Harris, 989 F.3d at 911.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13546 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 4 of 5
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, whether filed by the BOP or the prisoner. United States
v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2021).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McChristian’s
motion for compassionate release. The record shows that the court denied his
motion after considering his medical condition and finding that, based on
McChristian’s own assertions, his diabetes was being treated with daily medication
in prison. The court further noted that McChristian had not alleged that his
condition substantially diminishes his ability to provide self-care or is one from
which he is not expected to recover. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment.
(n.1(A)(ii)). Moreover, the district court correctly found that it was bound by the
policy statements in § 1B1.13 when it found that COVID-19 itself was not an
extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant a sentence reduction and declined
to consider McChristian’s argument regarding the illegality of his sentence. See
Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1252.
Additionally, the district court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors
before denying McChristian’s motion, further indicating that it didn’t abuse its
discretion in denying his motion. See United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912
(11th Cir. 2021). The district court considered the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the length of time remaining on his sentence, and it was within its
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13546 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 Page: 5 of 5
discretion to give weight to those § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Croteau,
819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016).
AFFIRMED.
5