United States v. Karen Kallen-Zury


USCA11 Case: 20-14732 Date Filed: 07/20/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-14732 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20757-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KAREN KALLEN-ZURY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 20, 2021) Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Karen Kallen-Zury, a 67-year-old federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as USCA11 Case: 20-14732 Date Filed: 07/20/2021 Page: 2 of 8 amended by Section 603(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. 1 She argues that the district court erred by basing its denial on the limitations imposed by the policy statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The government responds by moving for summary affirmance of the district court’s order and for a stay of the briefing schedule, arguing that Kallen-Zury’s argument is foreclosed by this Court’s recent decision in United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-1732 (U.S. June 10, 2021). Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or 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). We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). Abuse of discretion review “means that the district court had a range of choice and that we cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different conclusion.” Id. at 912 (quotation marks omitted). However, a district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the 1 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”). 2 USCA11 Case: 20-14732 Date Filed: 07/20/2021 Page: 3 of 8 determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1194 (11th Cir. 2011). A district court has no inherent authority to modify a defendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th Cir. 2015). A district court may grant a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release, “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments