USCA11 Case: 23-10248 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10248 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONY OCHOA GUERRERO, a.k.a. Rony Ochoa Guerrero,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20807-DMM-1 USCA11 Case: 23-10248 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10248 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Rony Ochoa Guerrero, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

The district court ruled that Ochoa Guerrero failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant early release, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), weighed against granting relief. The United States moves for a summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. Be- cause “the position of [the United States] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affir- mance and deny as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.

In 2013, Ochoa Guerrero pleaded guilty to one count of con- spiring to commit and two counts of committing Hobbs Act rob- bery, 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and one count of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In his written plea agreement, he and the government agreed to recom- mend a term of 180 months of imprisonment and stated that this sentence was consistent with the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a). The district court sentenced Ochoa Guerrero to a total sentence of 180 months of imprisonment.

USCA11 Case: 23-10248 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 3 of 4

23-10248 Opinion of the Court 3 In 2022, Ochoa Guerrero moved for compassionate release, id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that intervening changes in the law could constitute “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to reduce his sentence, and the statutory sentencing factors supported a sen- tence reduction. He also argued that his sentence would be signifi- cantly reduced under the amendment to section 924(c) in the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 403(a), 132 Stat. 5194, 5221– 22, but he did not explain why.

The district court denied Ochoa Guerrero’s motion. The dis- trict court ruled that he failed to exhaust his administrative reme- dies and that, even if he had, he failed to establish an extraordinary or compelling reason for compassionate release. The district court also ruled that compassionate release would be inconsistent with the statutory sentencing factors and that section 403 of the First Step Act did not apply to his conviction.

Summary affirmance is appropriate because there is no sub- stantial question that Ochoa Guerrero is not entitled to compas- sionate release. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162. Ochoa Guerrero argues that his “extraordinary and compelling reason” for compas- sionate release is that he lacks a valid predicate offense to support his section 924(c) conviction. But section 3582(c) does not author- ize a district court to consider collateral attacks on a prisoner’s con- viction. Even if it did, his plea agreement specified that his section 924(c) conviction was predicated on substantive Hobbs Act rob- bery, which is a valid “crime of violence” under the elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337, USCA11 Case: 23-10248 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10248 1340–41 (11th Cir. 2016). And his argument that the district court was not bound by the policy of the Sentencing Commission, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, in deciding what constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling reason” is foreclosed by precedent. See United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1247–48 (11th Cir. 2021). Because Ochoa Guerrero failed to establish an “extraordinary and compelling rea- son” warranting compassionate release, we need not address his argument that the statutory sentencing factors weighed in favor of reducing his sentence. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–39 (11th Cir. 2021).

We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance, AFFIRM the denial of Ochoa Guerrero’s motion for compassionate release, and DENY AS MOOT the motion to stay the briefing schedule.