United States v. Peter Christian Boulette ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 20-14796   Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/22/2022   Page: 1 of 7
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 20-14796
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    PETER CHRISTIAN BOULETTE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00131-RDP-HNJ-1
    ____________________
    USCA11 Case: 20-14796      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 2 of 7
    2                      Opinion of the Court                 20-14796
    Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Peter Christian Boulette, proceeding pro se, appeals the dis-
    trict court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court abused
    its discretion by applying the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13,
    which he argues is inapplicable to motions filed by prisoners, and
    by finding that he did not present extraordinary and compelling
    reasons for release and that release was not warranted under the
    § 3553(a) factors.
    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.
    Giron, 
    15 F.4th 1343
    , 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). We will then review a
    district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an
    abuse of discretion. Id. “A district court abuses its discretion if it
    applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in
    making its determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual find-
    ings.” Id.
    Before the First Step Act of 2018, 
    Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132
    Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”), 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A) allowed the district court to reduce a prisoner’s
    term of imprisonment upon motion of the Director of the Bureau
    of Prisons (“BOP”), after considering the factors set forth in
    § 3553(a), if it found that extraordinary and compelling reasons
    USCA11 Case: 20-14796      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 3 of 7
    20-14796               Opinion of the Court                         3
    warranted such a reduction. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A) (effective
    November 2, 2002, to December 20, 2018). The First Step Act
    amended 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A) to allow the court to reduce a
    defendant’s term of imprisonment also upon motion of the defend-
    ant, after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights
    to appeal a failure of the BOP to bring a motion on the defendant’s
    behalf, or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by
    the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier. See
    First Step Act § 603; 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A). A district court may
    grant compassionate release if: (1) an extraordinary and compelling
    reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduction would be consistent with
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of
    compassionate release. United States v. Tinker, 
    14 F.4th 1234
    ,
    1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021). When the district court finds that one of
    these three prongs is not met, it is not required to examine the
    other prongs. Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348. Factors under § 3553(a) that
    the district court may consider include the criminal history of the
    defendant, the seriousness of the crime, the promotion of respect
    for the law, just punishment, protecting the public from the de-
    fendant’s crimes, and adequate deterrence. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    The policy statements applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) are
    found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which, notably, has not been amended
    since the First Step Act was passed and refers only to a sentence
    reduction upon a motion from the BOP Director. See U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.13 (stating that a court may reduce a prisoner’s sentence only
    upon a motion from the BOP Director). The commentary to
    USCA11 Case: 20-14796      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 4 of 7
    4                       Opinion of the Court                 20-14796
    § 1B1.13 states that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist un-
    der any of the circumstances listed, as long as the court determines
    that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person
    or to the community, as provided in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3142
    (g). See
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; id., comment. (n.1). The commentary lists a de-
    fendant’s medical condition, age, and family circumstances as pos-
    sible “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sen-
    tence reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)-(C)). A pris-
    oner’s rehabilitation is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compel-
    ling reason warranting a sentence reduction. Id., comment.
    (n.3). The commentary also contains a catch-all provision for
    “other reasons,” which provides that a prisoner may be eligible for
    a sentence reduction if “[a]s determined by the Director of the Bu-
    reau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant’s case an extraordinary
    and compelling reason other than, or in combination with,” the
    other specific examples listed. Id., comment. (n.1(D)).
    In Bryant, we concluded that § 1B1.13 applies to all motions
    for compassionate release filed under § 3582(c)(1)(A), including
    those filed by prisoners, and thus a district court may not reduce a
    sentence unless a reduction would be consistent with § 1B1.13’s
    definition of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” United
    States v. Bryant, 
    996 F.3d 1243
    , 1262-64 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    142 S. Ct. 583
     (2021). Next, we concluded that the catch-all provision
    in the commentary to § 1B1.13 did not grant to district courts, in
    addition to the BOP, the discretion to develop other reasons out-
    side those listed in § 1B1.13 that might justify a reduction in a
    USCA11 Case: 20-14796       Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 12/22/2022      Page: 5 of 7
    20-14796                Opinion of the Court                           5
    defendant’s sentence. Id. at 1248, 1263, 1265. Thus, we rejected
    Bryant’s argument that his situation presented extraordinary and
    compelling reasons because he would not be subject to a 25-year
    mandatory minimum sentence for his multiple § 924(c) offenses if
    he had been sentenced after enactment of the First Step Act. Id. at
    1251, 1257-58, 1265.
    The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
    ted to the sound discretion of the district court. Tinker, 14 F.4th at
    1241. A district court abuses its discretion when it “(1) fails to afford
    consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight,
    (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
    (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper
    factors.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Where consideration of
    the § 3553(a) factors is mandatory, district courts need not address
    each of the § 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evidence. Id.
    Instead, an acknowledgement by the district court that it consid-
    ered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is sufficient.
    Id. The record must indicate that the district court considered a
    number of the factors. Id.
    Documents filed by pro se litigants are to be liberally con-
    strued and must be held to less stringent standards than documents
    drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 
    429 U.S. 97
    , 106 (1976).
    Issues not raised in an initial brief are deemed forfeited and will not
    be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances. United States v.
    Campbell, 
    26 F.4th 860
    , 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, No.
    21-1468 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2022).
    USCA11 Case: 20-14796      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 6 of 7
    6                       Opinion of the Court                 20-14796
    Here, this Court made clear in its intervening decision in
    Bryant that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is the applicable policy statement for
    all § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, even those filed by prisoners, so the dis-
    trict court did not abuse its discretion in applying § 1B1.13 to Bou-
    lette’s case. 996 F.3d at 1262. As to Boulette’s arguments for ex-
    traordinary and compelling reasons for release, the district court
    correctly determined that Boulette’s proffered reasons for release,
    such as his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the harsh nature of
    his sentence, arose under the “catch all” provision of U.S.S.G. §
    1B1.13, Application Note 1(D). While the district court addressed
    those reasons on the merits, this Court subsequently determined
    in Bryant that the district court was not authorized to determine
    that other extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief existed
    beyond those listed in § 1B1.13. Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1248, 1263,
    1265. The only argument Boulette made in his § 3582(c)(1)(A) mo-
    tion that could be considered an extraordinary and compelling rea-
    son under § 1B1.13 was his argument that he should be released
    due to the health risks posed by COVID-19, but he did not address
    this argument in his brief, and it is thus forfeited before this Court.
    Campbell, 26 F.4th at 873. Thus, the district court correctly deter-
    mined that Boulette failed to show an extraordinary and compel-
    ling reason for release, and this Court may affirm on this basis
    alone. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237-38.
    Additionally, the district court also did not abuse its discre-
    tion in determining that compassionate release was not warranted
    USCA11 Case: 20-14796      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 7 of 7
    20-14796               Opinion of the Court                         7
    under the § 3553(a) factors. The district court considered Bou-
    lette’s arguments that he had worked to rehabilitate himself while
    incarcerated but determined that in light of the seriousness of his
    conviction of 6 felony counts, including illegal possession of a fire-
    arm and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
    methamphetamine, releasing him early would not reflect the seri-
    ousness of his offenses or the needs to promote respect for the law,
    provide just punishment for his past behaviors, afford adequate de-
    terrence to criminal conduct in the future, or protect the commu-
    nity. Because the record reflects that the district court considered
    Boulette’s arguments and mitigating evidence and the district court
    had broad discretion in deciding what weight it would give to the
    § 3553(a) factors, Boulette has not shown that the district court
    abused its discretion in determining that compassionate release
    was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors, particularly as Bou-
    lette’s sentence had already been commuted to half its original
    length. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241.
    Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying Boulette’s motion for compassionate release. Accord-
    ingly, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-14796

Filed Date: 12/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2022