United States v. Karl T. Waldon, 21-12097

In 2000 Waldon, a former Jacksonville deputy sheriff, was convicted on multiple counts including drug trafficking and sentenced to life; drug counts were sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
In 2019 Waldon (pro se) moved for compassionate release and/or a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, § 404 (and § 603 / 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
The district court construed the filing as a compassionate-release motion, ordered a government response, and denied relief: it found Waldon had not exhausted administrative remedies, had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons, the § 3553(a) factors opposed release, and he was ineligible for a First Step Act § 404 reduction because his conviction was under § 841(b)(1)(C).
On appeal Waldon argued he was eligible for a § 404 reduction, had exhausted administratively, and showed extraordinary and compelling reasons; he did not contest the district court’s § 3553(a) finding.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed eligibility de novo and compassionate-release denials for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding (1) § 841(b)(1)(C) convictions are not covered by the First Step Act and (2) Waldon abandoned any challenge to the § 3553(a) finding by failing to brief it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for First Step Act § 404 sentence reduction	Waldon: his conviction should be reduced under § 404	Government/District Ct: only convictions triggering § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) or (B)(iii) are covered; § 841(b)(1)(C) is not	Affirmed: § 841(b)(1)(C) convictions are not covered; no reduction under § 404
Administrative exhaustion for compassionate release	Waldon: he exhausted administrative remedies	Government/District Ct: he failed to exhaust	Affirmed deference to district court: exhaustion requirement applies; court noted failure to show exhaustion on appeal
Extraordinary and compelling reasons / consistency with policy statements	Waldon: presented extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release	District Ct: he failed to show such reasons and relief must align with § 1B1.13	Affirmed: even assuming compelling reasons, other requirements unmet and § 3553(a) factors control
§ 3553(a) factors as basis for denial	Waldon: did not contest § 3553(a) finding on appeal	District Ct: § 3553(a) factors weigh against release	Affirmed: appellate brief did not challenge § 3553(a) analysis, so issue abandoned; denial must stand

Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (Fair Sentencing Act did not alter penalties for § 841(b)(1)(C) offenses)
United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (defines "covered offense" under First Step Act as crack convictions tied to § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) or (B)(iii))
United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) (standard of review: de novo for First Step Act eligibility; abuse of discretion for compassionate release denial)
United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234 (11th Cir. 2021) (three-part test for compassionate release and requirement that any reduction be consistent with § 1B1.13)
United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021) (administrative exhaustion is required but nonjurisdictional)
United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1990) (courts must "look behind the label" of pro se filings to determine cognizable claims)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (claims not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se briefs construed liberally but unbriefed issues are abandoned)