USCA11 Case: 21-10009 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10009
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20795-UU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRAVIS ETIENNE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 8, 2021)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 21-10009 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 2 of 6
Travis Etienne, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s denial of
his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). After careful
review, we affirm.
I.
Etienne is serving a 262-month sentence after pleading guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm in 2012. Etienne’s sentence was significantly
longer because of his status as an armed career criminal and because he possessed
the firearm in connection with a controlled substance offense. At sentencing, the
district court observed that Etienne was subject to a much higher sentence than
another defendant being sentenced the same day whose criminal conduct was
worse. The district court stated that “this isn’t really fair” to Etienne, and that a
sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment “is a lot under these circumstances.”
In August 2020, Etienne filed a motion for compassionate release, and
argued that three extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted a sentence
reduction in his case. First, he pointed out that without the armed career criminal
enhancement, his Sentencing Guidelines range would have been only 41–51
months’ imprisonment. Second, he argued the district court had been reluctant to
impose a 262-month sentence in his case. Finally, he pointed to his significant
record of rehabilitation: he has completed a number of courses while incarcerated,
2
USCA11 Case: 21-10009 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 3 of 6
maintained steady employment, and received only a single incident report in eight
years.
The district court denied Etienne’s motion. This is Etienne’s appeal.
II.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court abuses its discretion
when it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures, or makes
clearly erroneous findings of fact. United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288, 1293
(11th Cir. 2015).
Etienne makes two arguments on appeal. First, he says the district court did
not provide sufficient analysis to enable meaningful appellate review. Second, he
says the district court erred in finding that his lengthy sentence, which he believes
could not be imposed today and which he says the district court regretted imposing
upon him then, in combination with his record of rehabilitation did not merit
compassionate release. We address each in turn.
First, although concise, the district court’s order provided sufficient analysis
to enable appellate review. When deciding whether to grant a motion for
compassionate release, the district court must consider two things: (1) whether the
movant “has offered extraordinary and compelling reasons and whether a reduction
3
USCA11 Case: 21-10009 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 4 of 6
or release would be consistent with the policy statement found at U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13”; and (2) whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support release.
United States v. Cook, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 2149339, at *3 (11th Cir. May 27,
2021) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court addressed both factors.
It recited the extraordinary and compelling reasons listed in United States
Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13, and explained that Etienne’s reasons for release
did not comport with those listed in the policy statement.
The record reflects the district court also considered the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. This Court does not require district courts to explicitly discuss
each factor it is required to consider. See United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d
1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). The record need only indicate that the district court
considered some of the factors. See United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944
(11th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the record indicated the district court “did, in fact,
consider a number of the sentencing factors”). And the record here indicates that
the district court considered a number of the § 3553(a) factors. The district court
observed that Etienne devoted significant efforts to rehabilitate himself, which
goes to his “history and characteristics.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The district
court also considered the “potential sentencing disparities” that existed between
Etienne and similarly situated defendants sentenced after enactment of the First
Step Act, as well as the fact that Etienne served “less than half of his sentence,”
4
USCA11 Case: 21-10009 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 5 of 6
which shows the district court considered the “sentencing range,” and the “need to
avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct.” Id. § 3553(a)(4), (6). The district
court even noted explicitly that “on balance, such early release would be
inconsistent with the § 3553 sentencing factors.”
Second, the district court did not err in finding that Etienne did not put
forward extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release.
When adjudicating compassionate release motions, district courts must ensure that
any sentence reduction is “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In United States v.
Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021), a panel of this Court held that Guideline
§ 1B1.13 and its accompanying application note apply to defendant-filed
compassionate release motions because the statement is “capable of being applied”
to those motions. Id. at 1247.
As a result, the District Court here was limited to considering those
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons outlined in the policy statement and
accompanying application note. The application note specifies that “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” exist when a defendant presents one of a set of medical,
age-related, or family circumstances, USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(C), or: “[a]s
determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant’s
5
USCA11 Case: 21-10009 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 6 of 6
case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with,”
the specific reasons outlined in the application note. USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D).
Etienne does not claim to have any of the age, family, or medical reasons outlined
in the application note. Nor has the BOP Director determined that Etienne has
“other” extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. Id.
AFFIRMED.
6