USA v. Stephan Sessoms, No. 20-13856 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-13856 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-13856 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEPHAN SESSOMS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00076-TCB-JSA-3 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-13856 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 20-13856 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Stephan Sessoms appeals pro se the denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court ruled that Sessoms failed to identify extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and, in the alternative, that the statutory sentencing factors weighed against reducing his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm. Sessoms argues that his evidence proved his mother was unable to care for his minor child and provided 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). Sessoms acknowledges that the district court denied his “motion for two reasons” and does not dispute the finding by the district court that his service of “less than three years” of his “sentence of 180 months, [which was] far below his recommended guideline range of between 352 and 425 months,” would not provide “protection [to] the public and [address the] seriousness of USCA11 Case: 20-13856 20-13856 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 [his] offense.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because Sessoms has failed to challenge the alternative ruling that the statutory sentencing factors weigh against reducing his sentence, “it follows that the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. We AFFIRM the order denying Sessoms’s motion for compassionate release.
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.
