United States v. Jorge Bonilla Mesa ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 22-11361    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 12/22/2022   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 22-11361
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JORGE BONILLA MESA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20661-PCH-2
    ____________________
    USCA11 Case: 22-11361        Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 12/22/2022        Page: 2 of 6
    2                         Opinion of the Court                    22-11361
    Before BRANCH, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jorge Bonilla Mesa, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
    appeals following the district court’s denial of his motion for
    compassionate release under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A). This is
    Mesa’s third motion for compassionate release.
    We review a district court’s determination about a
    defendant’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c) de
    novo. United States v. Bryant, 
    996 F.3d 1243
    , 1251 (11th Cir. 2021).
    We review a district court’s ruling on an eligible defendant’s
    motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. 
    Id.
    The government moves for summary affirmance of the
    district court’s order. Summary disposition is appropriate where
    “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law
    so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of
    the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
    frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162
    (5th Cir. 1969). 1
    Under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce
    a prisoner’s term of imprisonment “after considering the factors set
    1 In our en banc decision in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 
    661 F.2d 1206
    , 1209
    (11th Cir. 1981), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former
    Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.
    USCA11 Case: 22-11361      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 3 of 6
    22-11361                Opinion of the Court                         3
    forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it
    finds that” (as relevant here) “extraordinary and compelling
    reasons warrant such a reduction” and “that such a reduction is
    consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
    Sentencing Commission.” The applicable Sentencing Commission
    policy statement is set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.13.
    Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1248. The application notes to § 1B1.13
    establish four categories of circumstances in which “extraordinary
    and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction exist:
    (1) qualifying medical conditions, (2) advanced age, (3) family
    circumstances, and (4) other circumstances in the defendant’s case
    are determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to be
    extraordinary and compelling. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. Under
    the policy statement, a defendant’s medical conditions qualify as
    “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for his release if he is
    suffering from (1) a terminal illness, or (2) a serious physical or
    medical condition, functional or cognitive impairment, or
    deteriorating health due to aging, which “substantially diminishes
    the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the
    environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is
    not expected to recover.” Id. cmt. n.1(A).
    To grant a motion for compassionate release under
    § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must first find that all three of the
    statutory prerequisites for relief are met: extraordinary and
    compelling reasons justifying release, consistency with § 1B1.13,
    and support in the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v.
    USCA11 Case: 22-11361     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/22/2022    Page: 4 of 6
    4                      Opinion of the Court                22-11361
    Tinker, 
    14 F.4th 1234
    , 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). Because all three
    conditions are necessary, “the absence of even one would foreclose
    a sentence reduction.” 
    Id. at 1238
    . Here, the district court found
    that none of the statutory prerequisites were met.
    Now on appeal, Mesa argues that he has shown three
    “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release: his medical
    condition, sentencing disparities, and his rehabilitation in prison.
    For his medical condition, he claims that he has asthma, obesity,
    and a missing kidney, all of which also increase his risk of
    complications from Covid-19. He also asserts that prisoners
    receive “minimal medical care.”
    None of these three reasons are “extraordinary and
    compelling” under the Guidelines. In assessing whether reasons
    are “extraordinary and compelling,” district courts are limited to
    the four categories of circumstances set out in the application notes
    to § 1B1.13. See Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1248. Sentencing disparities
    and rehabilitation may be relevant to other parts of the
    compassionate release analysis, but they do not fall into one of
    these categories.
    That leaves Mesa’s medical conditions. Although a medical
    condition may qualify as “extraordinary and compelling,” Mesa has
    not shown that any of his are terminal, so debilitating that they
    substantially diminish his ability to provide self-care in prison, or
    that they are not manageable in prison. Nor has Mesa
    substantiated his claims of inadequate medical care.
    USCA11 Case: 22-11361      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 12/22/2022     Page: 5 of 6
    22-11361               Opinion of the Court                         5
    To the contrary, medical records reflect that Mesa’s medical
    conditions have been carefully managed. Mesa has received
    medical attention several times over the past few years. His visit
    summaries are detailed: providers measure his vitals, thoroughly
    assess his health, and refer often to his medical history. As recently
    as March 2021, Mesa reported that he “[f]eels good, has no
    complaints.”
    Providers have also managed the specific ailments that Mesa
    identifies. In April 2021, Mesa first notified his providers that he
    was “born with asthma.” In response, they carefully analyzed his
    breathing concerns and made recommendations, even though he
    said he had not had an asthma attack since 2010. As for obesity,
    providers have tracked his weight over time and more than once
    discussed “healthy diet and exercise” and made “specific
    recommendations” to help his conditioning. It is true that Mesa
    has been missing a kidney since his childhood, but nothing suggests
    that this has affected his health, including recent bloodwork. In
    short, none of Mesa’s ailments—alone or together—are a
    qualifying medical condition under the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1.
    Covid-19 does not change the calculus. In fact, this Court
    recently rejected a prisoner’s similar argument that “the
    confluence of his medical conditions and COVID-19 creates an
    extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate
    release.” United States v. Giron, 
    15 F.4th 1343
    , 1346 (11th Cir.
    2021). Besides, Mesa’s risk is otherwise low. He has been
    USCA11 Case: 22-11361     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/22/2022    Page: 6 of 6
    6                      Opinion of the Court                22-11361
    vaccinated against the virus and received a booster shot, and he is
    routinely tested for Covid-19.
    Because Mesa failed to demonstrate an extraordinary and
    compelling reason for his release, “one of the necessary conditions
    for granting compassionate release was absent; therefore,
    compassionate release was foreclosed.” Giron, 15 F.4th at 1350.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion.
    We conclude that the government’s position on appeal is
    “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
    question as to the outcome of the case,” and we therefore GRANT
    the government’s motion for summary affirmance. Groendyke
    Transp., Inc., 
    406 F.2d at 1162
    . The government’s motion to stay
    the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-11361

Filed Date: 12/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2022