Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sirrico LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-13783

Decided: August 11, 2021

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. Jennifer Waugh Corinis, Greenberg Traurig, PA, Tampa, FL, Linda Julin McNamara, U.S. Attorney Service - Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Rosemary Cakmis, Law Office of Rosemary Cakmis, Orlando, FL, Laura Daines, Federal Public Defender's Office, Tampa, FL, Sirrico Lewis, FCI Forrest City Medium - Inmate Legal Mail, Forrest City, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Sirrico Lewis appeals the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the First Step Act. We affirm.

First, Mr. Lewis argues that the district court was not limited by the Sentencing Commission's policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, in considering his motion. But our decision in United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir. 2021), forecloses that argument.

Second, Mr. Lewis contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in light of his evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation. We disagree. The district court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors. And though it did not mention Mr. Lewis’ evidence of rehabilitation, its explanation is sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1184-86, (11th Cir. 2021). The district court pointed to a number of reasons why compassionate release was inappropriate—including Mr. Lewis’ lengthy criminal history and convictions for sexual assault—and its decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion.



Copied to clipboard