USA v. Xzavious Montrez Brown

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-11404
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
XZAVIOUS MONTREZ BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00377-TWT-JED-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-11404 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-11404
Before BRANCH , L UCK , and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM :
Xzavious Brown appeals the denials of his motions for com-
passionate release under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(1)(A). We af-
firm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1995, after Brown waived counsel and proceeded pro se,
he was convicted of armed bank robbery and sentenced to forty-
seven years’ imprisonment. Pending trial, Brown attempted to es-
cape by locking correctional officers in a cell but was thwarted after
a struggle. For assaulting and kidnapping the correctional officers,
Brown received a life sentence running consecutively to the bank
robbery sentence.
In 2020, Brown moved for compassionate release under the
First Step Act, arguing that extraordinary and compelling circum-
stances existed because of his declining health: conjunctivitis had
dimmed his vision and he suffered from severe knee and joint pain.
Brown also argued that he had “aged out of crime”; had received a
longer sentence than his codefendants; and had suffered physical
and sexual abuse while in prison. The district court denied Brown’s
compassionate release motion because he had been convicted of
serious crimes, had tried to escape, and had violated thirty prison
disciplinary rules since his convictions—including for threatening
bodily harm, assault, and possessing a deadly weapon—and
USCA11 Case: 21-11404 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

21-11404 Opinion of the Court 3
therefore the section 3553(a) factors weighed against release.
Brown did not appeal.
Months later, Brown filed two more motions for compas-
sionate release. The second motion—a single page letter—asked
for mercy from the district court. The third motion asked to
amend the second motion and argued that the First Step Act of
2018 was an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting re-
sentencing and that the district court should not have allowed him
to waive his right to counsel in his 1995 bank robbery trial. The
district court denied both “for the reasons set forth” in its first or-
der. Brown appealed the denial of his second and third compas-
sionate release motions.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s 18 U.S.C.
section 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.
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 im-
proper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings
of fact that are clearly erroneous.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
Brown makes two arguments on appeal. First, he contends
that the district court erred by summarily denying his second and
third motions for compassionate release without addressing their
merits. Second, he argues that, at his trial, he did not knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel, which he
USCA11 Case: 21-11404 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-11404
contends is an extraordinary and compelling reason that justifies
relief.
District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term
of imprisonment but may do so to the extent authorized in sec-
tion 3582(c). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c);
United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d
1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020),
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2635 (2021). To
grant a reduction under section 3582(c)(1)(A), district courts must
find that three necessary conditions are met: “[1] support in the
[section] 3553(a) factors, [2] extraordinary and compelling reasons,
and [3] adherence to [sentencing guideline section] 1B1.13’s policy
statement.”
United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th
Cir. 2021).
Here, the district court found that the section 3553(a) factors
weighed against release. Brown has not challenged this finding on
appeal. “When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal
one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment,
he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and
it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”
United States
v. King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and
alteration omitted). Because Brown hasn’t challenged one of the
district court’s grounds to deny his motions, we affirm the district
court’s decision.
Brown’s arguments to the contrary are meritless. First, the
district court did not “summarily den[y]” his motions. “A court
must explain its sentencing decisions adequately enough to allow
for meaningful appellate review.”
United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th
USCA11 Case: 21-11404 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

21-11404 Opinion of the Court 5
1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court explained it was
denying Brown’s motions “for the same reasons” it had in its first
order—that the section 3553(a) factors weighed against Brown’s re-
lease. By referencing its prior order, the district court provided suf-
ficient information for us to meaningfully review its decision.
And second, Brown’s argument—that he should not have
been allowed to represent himself, which is an extraordinary and
compelling circumstance—is not enough to reverse the district
court’s compassionate release decision. To obtain compassionate
release, Brown had to show that all three requirements in section
3582(c)(1)(A) were satisfied, including that the section 3553(a) fac-
tors weighed in his favor.
Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237. “Absence of
even one” condition forecloses relief.
Id. Thus, even if improper
self-representation was an extraordinary and compelling circum-
stance—it isn’t, because it is not one of the extraordinary and com-
pelling circumstances described in the section 1B1.13 policy state-
ment,
see United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1263 (11th Cir.
2021), but even if it was—we would still have to affirm the district
court’s order because Brown hasn’t challenged the conclusion that
the section 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release.
As we’ve said, Brown’s failure to challenge one of the district
court’s grounds for denying his motions means the district court’s
judgment must be AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-11404 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --