USCA11 Case: 20-14744 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14744 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELGIN BURNEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00608-SCB-AAS-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14744 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14744

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Elgin Burney pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in 2018. The district court sen- tenced Burney to 180 months of imprisonment—a sentence that he is currently serving. About a year ago, Burney filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He ar- gued that compassionate release was justified because of his “ex- tensive rehabilitation” and the high risk of his contracting COVID- 19 while in prison. The district court rejected Burney’s motion, finding that he failed to present an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate release. The court further con- cluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors also weighed against granting Burney’s motion and that he would pose a “danger to the community” if released. Burney now appeals. We review a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) mo- tion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). In ruling on a motion for compassionate re- lease, a district court must determine whether the movant has of- fered “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release and con- sider the policy statement outlined in § 1B1.13 of the federal sen- tencing guidelines along with “all applicable § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (quota- tion omitted). USCA11 Case: 20-14744 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 Page: 3 of 3

20-14744 Opinion of the Court 3

Because Burney is seeking reversal of a judgment “based on multiple, independent grounds,” he must “convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” United States v. Maher, 955 F.3d 880, 885 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation omit- ted). He has failed to do so here. Burney argues that the district court wrongly determined that his medical condition and circum- stances did not rise to the level of an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. But he says nothing about the court’s separate and independent finding that the § 3553(a) sentencing factors—in- cluding “the nature and circumstances of Defendant’s offense of conviction and his criminal history”—also justified denying the motion. That undisputed determination would bar compassionate release even if we agreed that Burney had produced an extraordi- nary and compelling reason before the district court. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Burney’s motion for compassionate release.