United States v. Anthony Lewis ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 21-11197    Date Filed: 11/12/2021   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 21-11197
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ANTHONY LEWIS,
    a.k.a. Ant,
    a.k.a. Antman,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    USCA11 Case: 21-11197        Date Filed: 11/12/2021     Page: 2 of 4
    2                      Opinion of the Court                21-11197
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20529-JAL-9
    ____________________
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief                Judge, WILSON and
    ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Lewis, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial
    of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C.
    § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court ruled that the statutory sen-
    tencing factors weighed against a reduction of Lewis’s sentence
    and, in the alternative, that he would pose a danger to the public if
    released. We affirm.
    Lewis moved for early release based on his risk of severe ill-
    ness or death from COVID-19 due to his moderate to severe
    asthma, partial blindness, chronic knee and hand pain, and glau-
    coma. Lewis alleged that his continued education, exemplary be-
    havioral record, work in prison, and post-release plan established
    that he was no longer a danger to the community and that the stat-
    utory sentencing factors and his rehabilitation weighed in favor of
    a sentence reduction. The government opposed Lewis’s motion.
    The district court assumed that Lewis “presented extraordi-
    nary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction,” but it found
    USCA11 Case: 21-11197         Date Filed: 11/12/2021      Page: 3 of 4
    21-11197                Opinion of the Court                          3
    “that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) do not sup-
    port a sentence reduction, and that [Lewis] poses a danger to the
    safety of others and the community.” The district court determined
    that “the nature and circumstances of [Lewis’s drug] offense[,
    which it classified as] very serious,” and his “violent criminal his-
    tory and . . . consistent[] demonstrat[ion of] a lack of respect for the
    rule of law and law enforcement” did “not support a sentence re-
    duction . . . .” Alternatively, the district court determined that
    Lewis’s “lengthy and violent criminal history involving firearms
    and attempted murders, . . . [made him] a danger to the safety of
    other persons and the community for purposes of U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.13(2) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g), 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).”
    We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release
    for abuse of discretion. 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 improper procedures in making
    the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erro-
    neous.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 
    942 F.3d 1259
    ,
    1267 (11th Cir. 2019)). “When review is only for abuse of discre-
    tion, it means that the district court had a ‘range of choice’ and that
    we cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different
    conclusion had it been our call to make.” 
    Id. at 912
    .
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
    Lewis’s motion for compassionate release. The district court rea-
    sonably determined that requiring Lewis, a career offender, to
    serve the remainder of his “132-month prison sentence” was
    USCA11 Case: 21-11197          Date Filed: 11/12/2021       Page: 4 of 4
    4                        Opinion of the Court                   21-11197
    necessary “to reflect the seriousness of [his] offense, to promote re-
    spect for the law, . . . to provide just punishment for the offense, to
    afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the
    public from . . . [similar future] crimes . . ., 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)
    – (C).” The district court recalled from sentencing that, while he
    was on probation following his convictions for attempted murder,
    attempted felony murder of a police officer, resisting an officer
    with violence, and two counts of being a felon in possession of a
    firearm, Lewis participated “in a massive, year-long drug trafficking
    conspiracy involving crack cocaine, powder cocaine, ‘Molly,’
    ‘Xanax,’ and marijuana” for which he “alone was accountable for
    selling at least 120 grams of crack cocaine and 120 grams of powder
    cocaine.” The district court also highlighted that the conspiracy
    “involved [the use of] stash houses, trap houses, several firearms
    (including pistols, rifles, and a shotgun), and an arsenal of ammu-
    nition” and evidenced an escalation in violence from Lewis’s early
    adult convictions for carrying a concealed firearm and possessing
    marijuana. Lewis argues that insufficient weight was given to his
    self-improvement in prison, but we cannot say the district court
    abused its discretion by placing greater weight on Lewis’s offense
    and criminal history. See United States v. Kuhlman, 
    711 F.3d 1321
    ,
    1327 (11th Cir. 2013). And that same evidence supported the alter-
    native ruling of the district court that Lewis posed a danger to the
    public if released.
    We AFFIRM the denial of Lewis’s motion for compassion-
    ate release.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-11197

Filed Date: 11/12/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/12/2021