USCA11 Case: 24-10936 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10936 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERTO PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60252-DMM-2 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10936 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 2 of 4

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Roberto Perez appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his 240-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib- ute cocaine. He argues that he was eligible for compassionate re- lease under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) because (1) his 20-year sen- tence—which was the mandatory minimum at the time he was sentenced in 2012—is “unusually long,” (2) he has served more than 10 years of the sentence, (3) nonretroactive changes in the law have since reduced the applicable mandatory minimum to 15 years, and (4) at 48 years old, he has been fully rehabilitated, is un- likely to reoffend, and presents no danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). He also con- tends that the district court failed to adequately explain its conclu- sion that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against a sentence reduction.

The government moves for summary affirmance. Sum- mary disposition is appropriate if the appeal is frivolous or “the po- sition of one of the parties 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). 1

USCA11 Case: 24-10936 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 3 of 4

24-10936 Opinion of the Court 3 A district court may reduce a prisoner’s sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) only “after considering the factors set forth in sec- tion 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” regardless of whether the prisoner meets the other statutory criteria. See United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347–48 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). In explaining its decision to deny a motion for compas- sionate release, the district court need not separately address each of the § 3553(a) factors—“an acknowledgement by the district court that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ argu- ments is sufficient.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1241 (11th Cir. 2021).

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compas- sionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1237 n.1. A district court abuses its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors if it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. at 1241 (quotation omitted).

Here, the district court indicated that it had considered the parties’ arguments and the § 3553(a) factors. It denied Perez’s mo- tion for compassionate release in part because the nature and cir- cumstances of his offense (participation in a conspiracy to distrib- ute almost nine kilograms of cocaine, while serving a term of su- pervised release for a prior felony drug crime), his criminal history (two prior convictions for possession of controlled substances, one USCA11 Case: 24-10936 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 4 of 4

Perez has not shown that the district court abused its discre- tion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, or that the court failed to adequately explain its decision. Because the government’s position is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” we GRANT the govern- ment’s motion and AFFIRM. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.