USCA11 Case: 24-10075 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10075 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00320-SDM-NHA-3 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10075 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2024 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10075

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Cir- cuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Priscilla Ellis, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of her second motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court denied Ellis’s second motion for the same reasons it denied her first motion—that the statutory sen- tencing factors, id. § 3553(a), “weigh[ed] decisively against” a sen- tence reduction because she remained a danger to the public. The United States moves for summary affirmance. Because “the posi- tion 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 affirm.

We review a denial of a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.

United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1194 (11th Cir. 2011).

A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de- fendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a stat- ute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th Cir. 2015). A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment, under section 3582(c)(1)(A), “if (1) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor USCA11 Case: 24-10075 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2024 Page: 3 of 4

24-10075 Opinion of the Court 3 doing so, (2) there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for do- ing so, and . . . (3) doing so wouldn’t endanger any person or the community within the meaning of [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.13’s policy statement.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). The district court may consider these factors in any order, and the absence of any of the three fore- closes a sentence reduction. See id. at 1237–38; United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 2021).

Summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., F.2d at 1162. The district court denied Ellis’s first motion for compassionate release after ruling that she presented a “tangible and imminent threat to the public, including her family.” The dis- trict court explained that Ellis, who participated in an international fraudulent scheme and extracted millions of dollars from numer- ous victims, had served less than five years of her 40-year sentence for those offenses, and she had not begun to serve her 65-year sen- tence imposed after she was convicted separately of attempting to murder several of the witnesses against her and their family mem- bers. In denying Ellis’s second motion for compassionate release, the district court ruled that the statutory sentencing factors still “weigh[ed] decisively against Ellis’s release because Ellis remains a danger to the public.” The district court did not abuse its discretion.

And we need not decide whether she has identified an extraordi- nary and compelling reason for compassionate release. See Tinker, F.4th at 1237–38. Insofar as Ellis moves for appointment of coun- sel, she lacks a statutory or constitutional right to counsel in this USCA11 Case: 24-10075 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2024 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-10075 proceeding, and the interests of justice do not support her request.

See United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 795 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2009).

Because there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, we GRANT the motion for summary affirmance and DENY Ellis’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.