USA v. Christopher Loran Bentley, No. 18-11326 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 4, 2018.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 21-10382 Date Filed: 09/28/2021 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 21-10382 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cr-00094-TJC-PDB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LORAN BENTLEY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (September 28, 2021) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Christopher Bentley, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his USCA11 Case: 21-10382 Date Filed: 09/28/2021 Page: 2 of 2 motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court ruled that Bentley failed to identify extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release and, in the alternative, that “the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) do not support a reduction in [his] sentence.” We affirm. Bentley argues that his risk of contracting COVID-19 due to his asthma constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence, but we need not address that argument because we can affirm on the alternative ground stated by the district court. Before we will reverse a “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). Bentley lists as an issue on appeal that “the district court fail[ed] to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1-3) factors (which includes § 3553(a) factors) and give [them] appropriate weight,” but “simply stating that an issue exists, without further argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes our considering the issue on appeal,” id. at 681 (quoting Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009)). Because Bentley fails to challenge the alterative ruling that the statutory sentencing factors weighed against granting him a sentence reduction, “it follows that the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id. at 680. We AFFIRM the denial of Bentley’s motion for compassionate release. 2
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.
