USA v. Stanley Jerome Callaway

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11161
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANLEY JEROME CALLAWAY,
a.k.a. One-Two,
a.k.a. Two,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-11161 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11161
D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00209-SDM-AAS-4
____________________
Before R OSENBAUM , JILL PRYOR , and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Callaway
pro se appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194. “We
review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of an eligible
movant’s First Step Act motion and ‘must affirm unless the district
court made a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal
standard.’”
United States v. Potts, 997 F.3d 1142, 1145 n.2 (11th Cir.
2021) (quoting
United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1086 n.4
(11th Cir. 2020)). Callaway argues that the district court abused its
discretion by refusing to reduce his sentence under the First Step
Act. We disagree and affirm.
First, Callaway argues that the district court’s failure to con-
sider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in ruling on his
motion resulted “in a grave miscarriage of justice.” But we recently
held that the district court need not consider any of those factors
when exercising its “wide discretion” under the First Step Act.
United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1314–16 (11th Cir. 2021)
(“The First Step Act is clear—it is a permissive statute that does not
mandate consideration of the §3553(a) sentencing factors by a dis-
trict court when exercising its discretion to reduce a sentence under
section 404(b) of the First Step Act.”);
Potts, 997 F.3d at 1145 (“[A]
USCA11 Case: 22-11161 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-11161 Opinion of the Court 3
district court may, but is not required to, consider the § 3553(a) fac-
tors in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce a sen-
tence under the First Step Act.”). And, in any event, the district
court explicitly stated in its order denying Callaway’s motion that
it had conducted “a careful review” of the Section 3553(a) factors,
“including especially the need to protect the community and the
need to enhance respect for the law (including the rules and regu-
lations necessary to the health and safety of both a prison’s inmates
and a prison’s staff).”
Second, Callaway argues that the court’s decision “does not
allow for meaningful appellate review” because it does not ade-
quately explain why the motion was denied
See Stevens, 997 F.3d
at 1317 (“At a minimum, a district court must adequately explain
its sentencing decision to allow for meaningful appellate review.”).
We disagree. The district court’s decision exceeded the “minimum
explanation” required to afford meaningful review.
Id.
In its order denying Callaway’s motion, the district court
reasoned that Callaway’s prison disciplinary history “is unusually
long and gruesome,” comprising “seventy-eight disciplinary of-
fenses,” many of which were “abusive” sexual acts directed at
prison staff.
See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2403
(2022) (“[W]hen deciding whether to grant First Step Act motions,”
district courts may consider “postsentencing evidence of . . . prison
infractions as probative.”). The court added that it had conducted
“a careful review” of (1) the presentence report, (2) the sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-11161 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11161
guidelines, (3) the parties’ pleadings, (4) the balance of the record,
and (5) the Section 3553(a) factors.
This explanation is “enough to satisfy this Court that the dis-
trict court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a rea-
soned basis for exercising its discretion.”
Stevens, 997 F.3d at 1318;
cf. Potts, 997 F.3d at 1146 (“The district court’s explanation, while
brief, was sufficient,” where it “stated that, after reviewing the gov-
ernment’s response and the probation offer’s memorandum, it had
determined the §3553(a) factors indicated that a reduction was not
warranted under the facts and circumstances of Potts’ case.”).
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11161 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --