USA v. Harlan Decoste, No. 16-11840 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 17, 2017.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 24-12033 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12033 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plainti -Appellee, versus HARLAN DECOSTE, a.k.a. Money King, a.k.a. Moneyking_111, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida USCA11 Case: 24-12033 2 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 24-12033 D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cr-60172-WPD-1 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Harlan Decoste, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The government moves for summary affirmance. We grant that motion and affirm. Summary disposition is appropriate when “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.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review the denial of a section 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). Decoste argues that a change in law establishes that he would receive a shorter sentence if he were sentenced today and constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(6) (Nov. 2023). But we need not address that argument because Decoste abandoned any challenge to the determination that the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), weighed against his release. An appellant forfeits an issue by failing to raise it in his initial brief. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2014). And where a judgment is based on multiple, USCA11 Case: 24-12033 Document: 16-1 24-12033 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 independent grounds, an appellant must challenge every ground supporting it. Id. at 680. We may affirm a denial of compassionate release if the statutory sentencing factors weigh against relief. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). Decoste discussed the statutory sentencing factors for the first time in his response to the motion for summary affirmance, which is too late. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 683. Because Decoste abandoned any challenge to the independent ground that the sentencing factors weighed against granting a sentence reduction, we affirm. See id. at 680. In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the sentencing factors weighed against Decoste’s release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court determined that the nature and circumstances of the offense in operating a “fraud factory” that caused millions of dollars in losses, Decoste’s conduct compared with his codefendants, the need to promote respect for law, and the need to deter together weighed more heavily than any mitigating circumstances. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1240–41. And the district court committed no clear error in that judgment. We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance of the order denying Decoste’s motion for compassionate release. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. AFFIRMED.
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.
