Opinion
10-CR-20625-RAR/Becerra
10-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN OSCAR KALU, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's pro se Motion for Compassionate Release, filed on November 23, 2022 [ECF No. 172] (“Report”). The Court has reviewed the Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF No. 157], the United States of America's Response in Opposition [ECF No. 163], Defendant's Reply [ECF No. 169], the Report, and is otherwise fully advised.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783-84 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings of the recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). “[I]n determining whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate's report and recommendations, the district court has the duty to conduct a careful and complete review.” Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)). Legal conclusions are subject to de novo review, even if no party specifically objects. See United States v. Keel, 164 Fed.Appx. 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 348 (11th Cir. 1982).
Mindful of the standard of review, and having carefully examined all relevant pleadings and the record-as well as specifically conducted a de novo review of the Report's legal conclusions-it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 172] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Upon careful review, the Court agrees with the Report's conclusion that Defendant's circumstances are not “extraordinary and compelling” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See Rep. at 6; United States v. Thompson, No. 17-CR-60152, 2021 WL 5999422, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2021) (“[T]he Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently decided that § 1B1.13 is applicable for all § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, whether filed by the BOP or by a defendant directly, and that courts do not have discretion to develop ‘other reasons' to justify a reduction in a defendant's sentence. See United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the Court must apply § 1B1.13 to determine whether extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist.”). Further, the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh against Defendant's release. See Rep. at 7. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF No. 157] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED