Sentencing; Motion for “compassionate release”; The 18 USC § 3553(a) factors; “Seriousness” of the underlying offenses (§§ 3553(a)(1) & (a)(2)(A)); “Public safety” (§ 3553(a)(2)(C))

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-White’s motion for compassionate release based on the seriousness of his crimes and the sentence’s deterrent value. A jury convicted White on seven counts involving drugs and gun crimes, and the district court sentenced him to life in prison. Because of a drug amount calculation error, he was resentenced to 35 years. While serving his sentence, he unsuccessfully moved for release, arguing that the witnesses lied at trial and his counsel was ineffective. He contracted meningitis and was left paralyzed and partially blind. This was followed by mental issues leading to delusions, and harassment of prison nursing staff. The district court denied his motion for compassionate release based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. It noted that he originally received a long sentence because of “his egregious conduct, to deter others from criminality, and to protect the public.” It noted that his medical situation only affected one of those “factors—public protection. And it was ‘not convinced that [White] present[ed] no risk whatsoever to the public.’” On appeal, applying the abuse of discretion standard, the court reviewed the three things to be considered on a motion for compassionate release—“extraordinary and compelling reasons to release,” the § 3553(a) factors, and applicable policy statements. “If the prisoner flunks any of these requirements, he loses, and the court need not consider the others.” The district court focused on the § 3553(a) factors and was not required to explain its analysis of every one. White’s disagreement with how the factors were balanced was insufficient to require reversal. Contrary to his assertions, the district court considered his medical condition in detail, and did not apply “an incorrect legal standard” in evaluating the need to protect the public. When it “saw several factors that supported his sentence” (§§ 3553(a)(1)–(2)) and one “that cut both ways” (§ 3553(a)(2)(C)), “it was well within its discretion to deny relief.” White had “orchestrated a drug operation from his phone and recruited allies to cause violence. He didn’t use his legs or eyes to commit these crimes. He used only his voice. And, as his mistreatment of nurses shows, his voice is alive and well.” Affirmed.