United States v. Marco Laureti, 20-11099

Marco Laureti, a pro se federal prisoner, appealed denial of: (1) his compassionate-release motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) his motion for reconsideration; and (3) a Rule 36 motion to correct his presentence investigation report (PSI).
Laureti argued he qualified for compassionate release because his former mother‑in‑law (caretaker of his minor children) was incapacitated and he was the only alternative caregiver, and that the district court conflated "custody" with "caregiver."
The district court denied compassionate release, finding Laureti did not show his former mother‑in‑law was unable to care for the children or that he was the only available caregiver, and therefore no "extraordinary and compelling" reason existed.
Laureti sought to use Rule 36 to modify his PSI—proposing substantive changes to offense description, personal characteristics, and ability to pay—but did not raise those objections within 14 days after receiving the PSI.
The district court denied the Rule 36 motion as beyond the scope of clerical correction and untimely for substantive PSI objections; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Laureti showed "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for compassionate release based on his children’s caregiving situation	Laureti: district court conflated custody with caregiver; his former mother‑in‑law is incapacitated and he is sole available caregiver, warranting release	District court/Government: Laureti failed to prove the caregiver’s incapacity or that he was the only alternative; §3553(a) and U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 factors not satisfied	Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; Laureti failed to meet burden to show extraordinary and compelling reasons
Whether Rule 36 authorized the requested corrections to the PSI	Laureti: Rule 36 permits correction of the record and should allow requested changes to PSI	District court/Government: Rule 36 limited to clerical/ministerial errors; Laureti’s proposals were substantive and untimely under Rule 32(f)	Affirmed—Rule 36 cannot be used to make substantive PSI changes; objections untimely

United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for compassionate‑release denials)
United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines when a district court abuses its discretion)
United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2006) (factual findings not "clearly erroneous" when multiple permissible views exist)
United States v. Llewlyn, 879 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (motion for reconsideration reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings given liberal construction)
United States v. Davis, 841 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2016) (Rule 36 limited to clerical errors)
United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court lacks authority under Rule 36 to correct substantive PSI errors)