United States v. Roberto Luis Rene Martinez
20-12971
| 11th Cir. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Roberto Martinez, pro se, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (First Step Act) and denial of reconsideration.
- Martinez argued the district court was not bound by the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement, that his medical history (COVID vulnerability) warranted release, that the court improperly relied on a 36‑year‑old attempted murder conviction, and that procedural errors (reply deadlines, rapid denial of reconsideration, prison mailbox rule) prejudiced him.
- The district court denied relief; Martinez moved for appointment of counsel, which was denied.
- Controlling law: the First Step Act allows defendants to move for compassionate release after exhaustion; courts must find extraordinary and compelling reasons, consider § 3553(a), and act consistently with applicable policy statements (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13).
- In United States v. Bryant, the Eleventh Circuit held § 1B1.13 remains an applicable policy statement and the § 1B1.13 catchall is limited to determinations by the BOP Director (not district courts).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: Martinez did not meet § 1B1.13’s enumerated medical/age/caregiver criteria; the district court lacked authority to invoke the catchall; procedural complaints were either unfounded or harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could grant compassionate release despite § 1B1.13 referencing only BOP Director | Martinez: court not bound by § 1B1.13; district courts can independently find "other" extraordinary reasons | Government/district court: § 1B1.13 is the applicable policy statement and its catchall is limited to BOP Director determinations per Bryant | Court: Bound by § 1B1.13; cannot apply the catchall itself; denial proper |
| Whether Martinez’s health/COVID risk constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons under § 1B1.13 | Martinez: medical history and COVID vulnerability warrant release | Government: record lacked evidence of terminal illness, inability to self‑care, or age‑related decline; not within § 1B1.13’s first three categories | Court: Martinez failed to satisfy § 1B1.13 criteria; no authority to grant release on other‑than‑BOP grounds |
| Whether district court erred procedurally by not setting reply deadline or by ruling on reconsideration the next day | Martinez: not told when reply due; denial next day meant reply and exhibits weren’t considered | Government: no new information warranted notice; court reviewed Martinez’s reply and exhibits and treated them as timely; no required waiting period before ruling | Court: No procedural error that required reversal; court considered reply; any timing issue harmless |
| Whether prison mailbox rule or filing dates entitled Martinez to relief | Martinez: docket shows entry dates, not mailing dates; mailbox rule may have been violated | Government: timeliness was not in dispute except for an untimely reply Martinez admits; any mailing‑date issue does not change outcome | Court: Mailbox rule claims do not alter result; any error harmless; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) (§ 1B1.13 remains applicable and the catchall is limited to BOP Director determinations)
- United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021) (exhaustion under § 3582 is a non‑jurisdictional claims‑processing rule)
- United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2015) (district court may modify sentence only when authorized by statute or rule)
- United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2009) (pro se filings construed liberally; no right to counsel in § 3582 proceedings)
- United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) (defendant must be given notice and opportunity to contest new information relied on in sentence modification proceedings)
- United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (prison mailbox rule: pro se prisoner filing deemed filed on date delivered to prison authorities for mailing)
- Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) (motion for reconsideration may not be used to relitigate matters or present evidence available earlier)
- United States v. Trader, 981 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2020) (appellate courts generally will not consider evidence not in the district‑court record)