USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12956
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL G. AUDAIN,
a.k.a. New Chief,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:97-cr-06007-RNS-16
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 2 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12956
____________________
Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Joel Audain, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate
release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We discern no error in the
district court’s order, and thus affirm.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was indicted in 1998 on multiple counts involv-
ing conspiracy to import cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)
and 963, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, conspiracy to commit
money laundering in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and substan-
tive money laundering in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1957, 2. The
indictment stemmed from a cocaine smuggling operation Defend-
ant participated in while he was employed as an inspector with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) assigned to the Mi-
ami International Airport. Using his position as an INS inspector,
Defendant enabled smugglers to escape detection and searches as
they entered the United States from Haiti aboard commercial air-
craft. Over the course of approximately ten years, smugglers affil-
iated with the operation brought thousands of kilograms of cocaine
into the United States.
A jury convicted Defendant of all four counts asserted
against him, and he was sentenced to concurrent life sentences as
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 3 of 10
22-12956 Opinion of the Court 3
to each count to be followed by a five-year term of supervised re-
lease. The sentence was based on the large quantity of drugs in-
volved, which resulted in a base offense level of 38 for Defendant’s
offense, and several enhancements based in part on Defendant’s
abuse of his position as an INS inspector to commit the offense.
This Court vacated the judgment against Defendant in part be-
cause his life sentences on the money laundering counts exceeded
the statutory maximum. See United States v. Audain,
254 F.3d 1286,
1290 (11th Cir. 2001). On remand, the district court reduced De-
fendant’s sentence for those counts to ten and twenty years respec-
tively, to run concurrently with each other and with Defendant’s
remaining two concurrent life sentences.
The Sentencing Commission subsequently passed Amend-
ment 782, a retroactively applicable amendment to the sentencing
guidelines that “reduced the base offense level by two levels for
most drug offenses.” Hughes v. United States,
138 S. Ct. 1765, 1774
(2018). Defendant filed a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant
to Amendment 782, but the district court denied the motion. This
Court vacated that ruling on appeal, holding that the district court
abused its discretion by declining to reduce Defendant’s sentence
based on his purported obstruction of justice after concluding at
Defendant’s original sentencing that the obstruction of justice en-
hancement did not apply. United States v. Audain,
743 F. App’x 318,
321 (11th Cir. 2018). On remand, the district court reduced De-
fendant’s two remaining life sentences to concurrent thirty-year
sentences.
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 4 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12956
Defendant was furloughed and moved to home confine-
ment in Miami in 2019. He currently remains on home confine-
ment under certain conditions, including a monitoring device. Ac-
cording to the BOP website, Defendant is located at “Miami RRM,”
an entity responsible for overseeing prisoners under home confine-
ment. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/in-
mateloc/ (last visited August 2, 2023). Defendant is scheduled to
be released on November 13, 2023.
Id.
In July 2022, Defendant filed the present motion for compas-
sionate release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). As amended
by the First Step Act of 2018 (the “First Step Act”), that statute au-
thorizes a district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence if the re-
duction is warranted by “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
and if it is consistent with the sentencing factors set forth in
18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable Guidelines policy statements.
See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 1 Defendant asserted two grounds
to establish “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence
reduction in his case. First, he argued that his adult daughter’s can-
cer independently satisfied the statutory criteria for compassionate
release. Second, he relied on his “complete rehabilitation” in sup-
port of his release.
1 Section 3582(c)(1)(A) also authorizes a sentence reduction under certain cir-
cumstances if “the defendant is at least 70 years of age” but Defendant does
not argue that he qualifies for an age-based sentence reduction. See
18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii).
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 5 of 10
22-12956 Opinion of the Court 5
As to the first ground, Defendant stated that his 30-year-old
daughter, who lives on her own in Georgia, had been diagnosed
with breast cancer. According to Defendant, his daughter had no
family living nearby to help her, although her mother and sister
visited when they could. Defendant advised the court that his
daughter had considered moving to Florida if Defendant could as-
sist with her needs, including being accompanied to and taken care
of during her chemotherapy treatments. 2 Defendant implied that
he was not able to do that under the current conditions of his sen-
tence, which required him to wear a monitoring device and pre-
sumably limited his movements.
Regarding the second ground, Defendant conceded that re-
habilitation alone is not a ground for compassionate release. Nev-
ertheless, he claimed his rehabilitation could be considered to-
gether with his daughter’s illness to support his motion. According
to Defendant, he proved he had been completely rehabilitated be-
cause he had no reported incidents during his imprisonment or
since being furloughed. In addition, Defendant noted that he had
completed multiple certificates and been continuously employed
since being furloughed. Finally, Defendant presented evidence of
rehabilitation from family and community members, who advised
the court that he had restored the family home almost entirely by
himself and that he volunteered with Haiti Health and Restoration.
2 Alternatively, Defendant stated he would request that his supervision be
transferred to Georgia if best for his daughter’s treatment and well-being.
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 6 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12956
The district court denied Defendant’s motion in a paperless
order. First, it held that Defendant failed to exhaust his administra-
tive remedies as required to obtain relief under § 3582(c). The
court acknowledged that Defendant had attached to his motion a
copy of an email he purportedly sent to a general email address at
info@bop.gov, but concluded the email was insufficient to estab-
lish exhaustion because there was no correspondence to show that
the BOP, the warden at Defendant’s prison, or Defendant’s super-
vising official through his residential reentry program received his
request for compassionate release. Second, the court concluded
that Defendant failed to establish a statutorily recognized circum-
stance warranting compassionate release. The court did not con-
sider whether the § 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of releasing
Defendant or whether he would be a danger to the community if
released.
Defendant appeals the denial of his motion for compassion-
ate release, arguing that the district court abused its discretion be-
cause it did not consider the combination of circumstances—his
adult daughter’s medical condition and his own rehabilitation—he
presented in support of his motion. He argues further that the
court erred when it concluded he failed to exhaust administrative
remedies with respect to his motion. We assume without deciding
that Defendant properly exhausted his administrative remedies.
Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that Defendant failed
to establish his eligibility for compassionate release under § 3582(c).
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s denial of Defendant’s § 3582(c)
motion.
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 7 of 10
22-12956 Opinion of the Court 7
DISCUSSION
We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for com-
passionate release under § 3582(c). United States v. Giron,
15 F.4th
1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). Once eligibility is established, we re-
view the denial of a defendant’s motion for compassionate release
under § 3582(c) for an abuse of discretion. See id. “A district court
abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows
improper procedures in making the determination, or makes find-
ings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Harris,
989
F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC,
942 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted)).
The abuse of discretion standard allows the district court a “range
of choice” that we will not reverse “just because we might have
come to a different conclusion had it been our call to make.” See
id. at 912 (quotation marks omitted).
As amended by the First Step Act, § 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes
the district court to grant a defendant’s motion for compassionate
release if the court finds that: (1) “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant” such relief and (2) the defendant’s early release is
consistent with the sentencing factors of § 3553(a) and the “appli-
cable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”
18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The relevant policy statement, found in
USSG § 1B1.13, echoes the statutory requirements, stating that a
district court may grant a defendant’s motion for compassionate
release “if, after considering the factors set forth in . . . § 3553(a),”
the court determines that: (1) “[e]xtraordinary and compelling rea-
sons warrant” the defendant’s release and (2) “[t]the defendant is
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 8 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 22-12956
not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community,
as provided in
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).” USSG § 1B1.13. See also United
States v. Bryant,
996 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that
“1B1.13 is an applicable policy statement for all [§ 3582(c)] mo-
tions” and that district courts do not have discretion “to develop
other reasons that might justify a reduction in a defendant’s sen-
tence” (quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Tinker,
14 F.4th
1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (listing three conditions for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c): support in the § 3553(a) factors, extraor-
dinary and compelling reasons, and adherence to USSG § 1B1.13’s
policy statement).
The applicable Guidelines policy statement, cited above,
identifies three extraordinary and compelling reasons that can au-
thorize a court to grant a motion for compassionate release under
§ 3582(c). See USSG § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)-(C)). First, a de-
fendant’s medical condition can constitute an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release if the defendant can show he is suf-
fering either from a “terminal illness” or a “serious physical or med-
ical condition” that “substantially diminishes [his] ability . . . to pro-
vide self-care” in prison and “from which he . . . is not expected to
recover.” USSG § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)). Second, release is
permitted under certain circumstances if the defendant is at least
65 years old. See USSG § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(B)). And finally, a
defendant’s family circumstances can create an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release based on the “death or incapacitation
of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child” or the “incapacita-
tion of the defendant’s spouse or registered partner when the
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 9 of 10
22-12956 Opinion of the Court 9
defendant would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or
registered partner.” USSG § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(C)). The pol-
icy statement also contains a catch-all provision that allows the Bu-
reau of Prisons (“BOP”) to determine there are other extraordinary
and compelling reasons for a particular defendant’s release, but this
Court has held that only the BOP—as opposed to the court—has
the authority to determine release is warranted under that provi-
sion. See Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1263 (“We cannot replace the phrase
‘[a]s determined by the Director of the [BOP]’ with ‘as determined
by a district court.’”).
The district court correctly determined that Defendant does
not meet the standard for compassionate release set out in any of
the above provisions. Defendant does not allege a qualifying med-
ical condition or an age-related basis for his release. Defendant’s
sole argument is, instead, that he qualifies for compassionate re-
lease under the family circumstances provision because of his adult
daughter’s cancer diagnosis. Based on the plain language of that
provision, however, it only applies in a case involving the “death
or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child.”
USSG § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(C)) (emphasis added). It is thus un-
available to Defendant here.
Defendant argues the district court should have granted his
motion under the “catch-all” provision of USSG § 1B1.13, com-
ment. (n.1(D)) based on the special circumstances in his case—
namely, his adult daughter’s illness and his demonstrated rehabili-
tation. But as noted above, this Court has held that relief can only
USCA11 Case: 22-12956 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 10 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 22-12956
be granted under § 3582(c) based on one of the reasons expressly
set out in the applicable Guidelines policy statement—that is, a
qualifying medical condition, advanced age, or family circum-
stances requiring the defendant to act as a caretaker to a minor
child, spouse, or registered partner. See Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1265
(“Because [the defendant’s] motion does not fall within any of the
reasons that 1B1.13 identifies as extraordinary and compelling, the
district court correctly denied his motion for a reduction of his sen-
tence.” (quotation marks omitted)). Defendant’s “catch-all” argu-
ment is thus unavailing.
CONCLUSION
As the movant, Defendant had the burden of establishing his
entitlement to early release under § 3582(c). See United States v.
Hamilton,
715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013). The district court cor-
rectly held that Defendant failed to meet that burden here. The
court’s order denying Defendant’s § 3582(c) motion is thus
AFFIRMED.
