USA v. Anja Karin Kannell

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12635
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20701-JLK-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANJA KARIN KANNELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 22, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, MARTIN and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12635 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Anja Kannell, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of her motion for
compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Kannell argues that the district
court erred in denying her motion because she alleged unusual circumstances about
her health and family that warranted her release. We affirm.
Because section 3582(c)(1)(A) uses the permissive term “may” when it
grants district courts the authority to reduce a term of imprisonment for
extraordinary and compelling reasons, we review a denial of a motion for
compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 962
F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a
sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(1)(B) based on a retroactive statutory
change); United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for
abuse of discretion the denial of a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2)
based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines); Antonin Scalia &
Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 11, at 112 (2012)
(explaining that “may” is “permissive” and grants discretion). “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)
(quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 20-12635 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
A district court must find that a sentence reduction for extraordinary and
compelling reasons is consistent with policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing
Guidelines states that the district court must determine that the movant is not a
danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g), before it can determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons
exist. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; id., comment (n.1). And section 1B1.13 lists the
following as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release:
(A) a medical condition where the prisoner is suffering from (i) a terminal illness,
or (ii) deteriorating health related to aging that substantially diminishes the ability
of the prisoner to provide self-care within the prison; (B) the age of the prisoner,
being at least 65 years old; (C) the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the
prisoner’s minor child; (D) other reasons as determined by the director of the
Bureau of Prisons. Id. A prisoner’s rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and
compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. Id. comment (n.3). The movant
bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief under section 3582. See United
States v. Green, 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Kannell is serving a sentence
of 159 months of imprisonment following her convictions on multiple counts of
mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire fraud, id. § 1343, and aggravated identity theft,
USCA11 Case: 20-12635 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
id. § 1029. Kannell admitted that she was a “mostly healthy 50 year old” woman
with no “health risk factors,” but alleged that she was a “non-violent” and “first-
time” offender missing loved ones and facing a “risk of exposure” to COVIC-19 in
prison. She recounted her completion of 102 months of her sentence and her
rehabilitation as factors supporting her release. Kannell failed to allege a terminal
illness or health conditions that could reasonably be viewed as limiting her ability
to self-care, and her family circumstances fail to satisfy the reasons listed in the
Guidelines. The district court committed no error in finding that Kannell had failed
to prove her eligibility for compassionate release.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-12635 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --