USA v. Donald M. Reynolds

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11644
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD M. REYNOLDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cr-00081-DHB-BKE-2
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11644 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11644
Before N EWSOM , G RANT, and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Reynolds, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release un-
der 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), alleging the district court ignored his
sentencing-disparity argument. Specifically, Reynolds contends
that the district court abused its discretion by not addressing his
argument about the “disparity” between his sentence and that of
his codefendant. After careful consideration, we affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of a Sec-
tion 3582(c)(1)(A) motion 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 im-
proper 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).
District courts have discretion to reduce a criminal defend-
ant’s sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Sentencing Commission’s policy
statement governing compassionate release enumerates those rea-
sons that justify relief.
United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243,
1251−52 (11th Cir. 2021); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii). The dis-
trict court must also determine whether “the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors favor” reducing the defendant’s sentence.
United States v.
USCA11 Case: 22-11644 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-11644 Opinion of the Court 3
Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). “Because all three con-
ditions— i.e., support in § 3553(a) factors, extraordinary and com-
pelling reasons, and adherence to the § 1B1.13’s policy statement—
are necessary, the absence of even one would foreclose a sentence
reduction.”
Id. at 1237–38.
The weight given to any of the Section 3553(a) factors is
“committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
United
States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016);
accord
United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013). The
court need not state that it has explicitly considered each of the Sec-
tion 3553(a) factors or discuss each factor.
Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at
1326. “Instead, an acknowledgment by the district court that it con-
sidered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is suffi-
cient
.”
Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (internal citation omitted).
In effect, Reynolds’s argument is that the district court
abused its discretion because it did not specifically address one of
the Section 3553(a) factors—the need to avoid unwarranted sen-
tencing disparities—when it denied his motion for compassionate
release. That the district court did not specifically discuss that fac-
tor is not error. Rather, the court expressly discussed several Sec-
tion 3553(a) factors, concluding they weighed heavily against re-
leasing Reynolds sixteen years early. Such discussion is sufficient
“to satisfy the reviewing court of the fact that [the district court]
has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
making its decision.”
Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1326. Because Reyn-
olds’s challenge to the district court’s evaluation of the Section
USCA11 Case: 22-11644 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11644
3553(a) factors fails, his challenge to the denial of his motion for
compassion release does too.
See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38. The
district court, thus, did not abuse its discretion by denying Reyn-
olds’s motion for compassionate release.
The district court is AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11644 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --