USCA11 Case: 21-10768 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10768 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LAZARO RIVERO, a.k.a. Carlos Fegueroa a.k.a. Alberto Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20555-KMM-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10768 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10768

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Lazaro Rivero appeals the district court’s denial of his mo- tion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

He asserts the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

After review, 1 we affirm.

A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de- fendant’s sentence and may only do so when it is authorized by a statute or rule. United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir. 2015). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a defendant himself may initiate a motion for compassionate release “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Although the exhaustion re- quirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, a defendant must show that he satisfied the requirement if the government raises the issue before the dis- 1We review de novo a district court’s determination about a defendant’s eli- gibility for an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) sentence reduction. United States v. Bry- ant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion for compassionate release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).

USCA11 Case: 21-10768 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 Page: 3 of 3

21-10768 Opinion of the Court 3 trict court. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021) (analyzing merits of application because “the government has not asserted that [the defendant] failed to comply with” the administrative requirements).

The district court did not err by determining that Rivero was ineligible for compassionate release because he did not ex- haust his administrative remedies by requesting the Bureau of Prisons to file a motion on his behalf. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the Government raised this issue below, Rivero was required to demonstrate that he exhausted his admin- istrative remedies, but he did not. See Harris, 989 F.3d at 911.

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.