USA v. George Evangelista

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12514
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE EVANGELISTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60152-RKA-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12514 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12514
Before J ORDAN , J ILL PRYOR , and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
George Evangelista, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court order denying his motion for compassionate release. The
government, in turn, moves for summary affirmance and to stay
the briefing schedule. We grant the government’s motion for sum-
mary affirmance.
I.
Evangelista pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine. The
district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment.
In September 2020, Evangelista filed a motion for compas-
sionate release, asking the district court to reduce his custodial sen-
tence to time served. Evangelista requested a sentence reduction
because he had preexisting medical conditions that put him at a
greater risk of developing severe health consequences if he con-
tracted COVID-19.
In his motion, Evangelista urged the court to exercise its dis-
cretion to reduce his sentence because he had been rehabilitated
while incarcerated. To support his position, Evangelista presented
evidence showing that he had completed a drug treatment pro-
gram and courses in parenting and financial management while in-
carcerated. Evangelista also told the court about how he volun-
teered to tutor inmates who were learning English. Evangelista
USCA11 Case: 22-12514 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

22-12514 Opinion of the Court 3
also described how, if released, he would be able to live with his
mother and had a job as a floor installer waiting for him.
Approximately two years after Evangelista filed his motion
for compassionate release, the district court denied it. The district
court gave several reasons for denying the motion. For one, the
district court found that a sentence reduction was unwarranted
based on the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).1 Re-
garding the § 3553(a) factors, the court explained that a reduction
was unwarranted given the nature and circumstances of Evange-
lista’s underlying offense, his criminal history, and the need to pro-
vide adequate deterrence. The district court acknowledged Evan-
gelista’s evidence and arguments that he had been rehabilitated
while incarcerated but ultimately decided that the § 3553(a) factors
did not support a reduction.
1 Under § 3553(a), the district court is required to impose a sentence “suffi-
cient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the stat-
ute. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the seri-
ousness of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punishment;
deter criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal
conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or vocational
training, medical care, or other correctional treatment.
Id. § 3553(a)(2). The
court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the his-
tory and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the
applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing
Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the
need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
USCA11 Case: 22-12514 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12514
This is Evangelista’s appeal. After Evangelista filed his appel-
lant’s brief, the government moved for summary affirmance.
II.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-
come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap-
peal is frivolous.”
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
1162 (5th Cir. 1969).2
We review
de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen-
tence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
United States v.
Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). After eligibility is es-
tablished, we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial
of a defendant’s request for a sentence reduction.
Id.
III.
A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de-
fendant’s sentence and “may do so only when authorized by a stat-
ute or rule.”
United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 606 (11th Cir.
2015). As relevant here, a district court may reduce a defendant’s
2 In
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-12514 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

22-12514 Opinion of the Court 5
sentence when: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling rea-
sons” for a reduction, (2) the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
favor a reduction, and (3) awarding a reduction is consistent with
the policy statement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
See United
States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021); 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). If the district court finds that the defendant failed to
satisfy any one of these requirements, it cannot grant relief and
need not analyze the other requirements.
Tinker, 14 F4th at 1238.
Here, we agree with the government that summary affir-
mance is appropriate. There is no substantial question that the dis-
trict court acted within its discretion when it concluded that the
§ 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction.
Evangelista says that the district court abused its discretion
in analyzing the § 3553(a) factors because the district court failed to
consider, and did not even mention, the evidence he presented of
his rehabilitation while incarcerated. We disagree. The district
court’s order reflects that in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the
court considered Evangelista’s argument that he had been rehabil-
itated as well as his supporting evidence.
Furthermore, we cannot say that the district court abused its
discretion when it weighed the § 3553(a) factors and concluded that
no reduction was warranted. “The weight given to any specific
§ 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district
court.”
United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir.
2016). And the district court’s order reflects that in weighing the
§ 3553(a) factors, it chose to give particular weight to the nature
USCA11 Case: 22-12514 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-12514
and circumstances of the offense, Evangelista’s history and charac-
teristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence. This was not
an abuse of discretion.
We conclude that summary affirmance is warranted be-
cause the government’s position that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors is clearly cor-
rect as a matter of law. Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s
motion for summary affirmance and DENY its motion to stay the
briefing schedule as moot.
Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at
1162;
see also 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
USCA11 Case: 22-12514 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --