“Tapia Does Not Control Compassionate Release”: A Detailed Commentary on United States v. Francisco Saldana (11th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

The Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished but significant decision in United States v. Saldana, No. 23-12858 (11th Cir. July 3 2025), addresses the boundary between sentencing-stage principles announced in Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), and post-sentencing motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Francisco Saldana, a once-prominent Miami drug-conspiracy leader, sought compassionate release on account of severe, end-stage medical ailments. The district court acknowledged his “extraordinary and compelling” medical condition but denied relief after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing public-safety risks. On appeal, Saldana argued that (i) the court relied on undisclosed information about his brother’s recidivism risk, (ii) the court violated Tapia by considering his lack of behavioural therapy, and (iii) the § 3553(a) analysis was unreasonable.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, squarely holding that Tapia’s prohibition on using imprisonment to promote rehabilitation is confined to the original imposition or lengthening of a sentence and does not apply to a court’s assessment of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. This commentary unpacks the judgment, its reasoning, and its broader implications for federal compassionate-release jurisprudence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Saldana’s compassionate-release motion or his motion for reconsideration.
• Key Points:
  • Notice/Plain-Error: Even if the court erroneously relied on the brother’s “high risk of recidivism” classification without notice, any error was not plain and did not affect substantial rights.
  • Tapia: Tapia is limited to the sentencing phase; considering rehabilitation or lack of therapy in a § 3582(c)(1)(A) context is permissible when evaluating public-safety concerns.
  • § 3553(a): The district court’s weighing of danger to the community, intelligence/leadership skills, unfinished behavioural therapy, and an inadequately vetted re-entry plan was within its discretion.
• Outcome: Affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021) – Sets the abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of compassionate-release denials.
• United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) – Requires notice and opportunity to contest new information in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings; referenced by Saldana to argue due-process error.
• Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) – Forbids courts from imposing or lengthening prison terms to facilitate rehabilitation; Saldana claimed the district court violated this rule.
• United States v. Maiello, 805 F.3d 992 (11th Cir. 2015) – Held that Tapia does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) sentence-modification proceedings; the panel extends this reasoning to § 3582(c)(1)(A).
• United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343 (11th Cir. 2021) – Articulates the three compulsory findings for compassionate release (extraordinary reason, guideline consistency, § 3553(a) favorability).
• Additional supportive precedents: United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014).

The court synthesized these authorities chiefly to show: (i) the limited procedural rights in sentence-modification contexts (plain-error review); and (ii) Tapia’s non-application once a sentence is already fixed.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Plain-Error Framework: Because Saldana did not object below to the undisclosed risk-assessment score for his brother Jose, the appellate panel applied the four-part plain-error test (Anderson, Maradiaga). Even assuming error, the absence of prejudice (no reasonable probability of a different outcome) doomed the claim.
2. Demarcating Tapia:
   • Section 3582(a) (sentencing) and section 3582(c) (sentence modification) serve different purposes.
   • The Eleventh Circuit had already ruled in Maiello (a § 3582(c)(2) context) that Tapia does not bind modification proceedings.
   • Extending that rationale, the panel held Tapia is likewise inapplicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate-release motions.
   • Accordingly, the district court was free to consider Saldana’s lack of behavioural-modification therapy as evidence relevant to dangerousness under § 3553(a)(2)(C).
3. § 3553(a) Balancing: The appellate court reaffirmed its restrained standard—deference to the district court’s weighing of factors. It highlighted the district court’s:
   • Recognition of Saldana’s serious health issues (favouring release), yet
   • Conclusions about public-safety risk given Saldana’s leadership skills, lack of remorse, and proximity to the high-risk brother (countervailing).
   No clear error of judgment was found.

3.3 Potential Impact

The decision, though unpublished, is precedential within the Eleventh Circuit under Rule 36-2 and will likely be cited for two propositions:

1. Scope of Tapia: District courts may reference rehabilitative shortcomings (e.g., failure to complete programming) when evaluating compassionate-release motions without risking a Tapia violation, provided they are not extending imprisonment to force completion.
2. Procedural Expectations: Arguments about undisclosed information must be timely raised; otherwise, defendants confront the high bar of plain-error review.

More broadly, the ruling strengthens district courts’ discretion to deny compassionate release on public-safety grounds, even when “extraordinary and compelling” reasons exist, by allowing consideration of factors traditionally deemed “rehabilitative.”

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) – Commonly called “compassionate release,” this provision lets courts reduce a term of imprisonment if (i) extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, (ii) a reduction is consistent with Sentencing-Commission policy, and (iii) § 3553(a) factors favor release.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors – A list of considerations (seriousness of offense, deterrence, protection of the public, etc.) guiding courts at sentencing and when later modifying sentences.
• Tapia Error – Occurs if a sentencing court imposes or lengthens incarceration to make the defendant complete rehabilitation programs. It is not triggered merely by discussing rehabilitation in other procedural contexts.
• Plain-Error Review – A four-prong appellate standard applied when a litigant failed to object below: (1) error, (2) plain, (3) affects substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness or integrity of proceedings.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Saldana clarifies that once a sentence is imposed, Tapia’s bar on using incarceration to further rehabilitation does not hamstring a court’s public-safety analysis in compassionate-release proceedings. The ruling confirms district judges’ broad latitude under § 3553(a) and underscores the obstacle defendants face on plain-error review. Through this decision, the Eleventh Circuit aligns its compassionate-release jurisprudence with its § 3582(c)(2) precedents, providing a cohesive doctrinal framework that will influence motions brought by medically vulnerable inmates across the Circuit.