USA v. Frank Davis Moore, Jr., No. 14-12980 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 15, 2015.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-14791 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-14791 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cr-80034-KAM-21 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANK DAVIS MOORE, JR., a.k.a. Bow Head, a.k.a. Bodeen, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 2, 2021) Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-14791 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 2 of 3 Frank Moore, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by section 603(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. The district court denied Moore’s compassionate-release motion for two reasons: First, it found that Moore has not demonstrated any “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances, pursuant to the criteria listed in Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, that would warrant compassionate release. Second, it found that the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against relief. On appeal, Moore argues that the district court erred in requiring him to show one of the extraordinary and compelling circumstances in Application Note 1, because Application Note 1 does not limit what the district court can consider when deciding whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A). He also argues that the district court erred in failing to consider the merits of his second motion for compassionate release. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). “To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). When an appellant does not “challenge properly 2 USCA11 Case: 20-14791 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 3 of 3 on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id. We liberally construe briefs by pro se litigants, but issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Moore presents no argument that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the § 3553(a) factors weigh against compassionate release. Because he does not challenge one of the grounds that the district court relied on to decide his motion, we affirm the district court’s denial of Moore’s compassionate-release motion on that basis and do not reach the § 1B1.13 and merits issues. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
