USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13669 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00012-WLS-TQL-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13669

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Carlos Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. He argues that his unusually long sentence and his role as the sole caregiver for his ailing mother constitute extraordinary and compelling rea- sons for relief. In support, he invokes the November 2023 amend- ments to § 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines. But Johnson aban- doned many arguments he raised below, and the 2023 amend- ments do not apply retroactively. We affirm. I. In 2013, Johnson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. The District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, but later reduced his sentence twice— first to 360 months under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and then to 264 months under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Johnson has moved for post-conviction relief several times over the years, including motions under the First Step Act and prior motions for compassionate release. In his latest compassionate re- lease motion,1 Johnson argued that the length of his sentence,

1 Johnson filed the motion for compassionate release on October 31, 2022. He

then filed two motions requesting status updates before the District Court de- nied his motion for compassionate relief and the pending status updates. Six days after the denial, Johnson submitted a new motion for compassionate USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 3 of 5

23-13669 Opinion of the Court 3

sentencing disparities, and his inability to participate in the Bureau of Prisons’ Residential Drug Treatment Program amounted to ex- traordinary and compelling reasons for release. The District Court denied the motion. Johnson timely appeals. 2 II. To evaluate Johnson’s claims, we apply a two-step frame- work. First, we review de novo whether he is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). If eligibility is established, we then review the District Court’s denial of his motion for abuse of discre- tion. Id. Eligibility for compassionate release depends on three fac- tors: (1) whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists; (2) whether the requested sentence reduction aligns with § 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines; and (3) whether the § 3553(a) factors favor relief. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). If any factor is unmet, the District Court may deny relief without analyzing the others. Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348.

release and another motion for a status update regarding his earlier motion. The District Court dismissed both new motions as moot, finding the compas- sionate release motion duplicative of the one it had just denied. This appeal is about the denial of Johnson’s October 31, 2021, motion. 2 Johnson timely filed his initial brief, and the Government filed a timely re-

sponse. But Johnson later submitted a reply brief that was both untimely and non-compliant. See Fed. R. App. P. 31(a). Accordingly, we cannot consider his reply brief. USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13669

Before addressing the merits of Johnson’s claims, we must clarify the scope of the issues he preserved on appeal. Arguments not raised in an appellant’s initial brief are typically abandoned. United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2022). And here, Johnson has abandoned several arguments he raised in the District Court by failing to raise them in his initial brief. These in- clude (1) his eligibility for First Step Act relief, (2) his claim that his ineligibility for the Residential Drug Treatment Program consti- tutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, and (3) his assertion of unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. Because Johnson did not ad- dress these claims in his initial brief, we do not consider them fur- ther. Turning to the merits of Johnson’s remaining arguments, he contends he has new family circumstances and that his sentence qualifies as unusually long under the 2023 amendments to § 1B1.13 of the Guidelines. These arguments, however, are misplaced. When reviewing a District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we apply the version in effect at the time of the District Court’s decision. United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 2011). The decision at issue here—handed down in Oc- tober 2023—predates the November 2023 amendment that John- son relies on. True, we can consider a clarifying amendment to the Guide- lines. Id. at 1185. But we do not retroactively apply a substantive change. Id. And the 2023 amendment altered the text of the USCA11 Case: 23-13669 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 5 of 5

23-13669 Opinion of the Court 5

Guideline, indicating a substantive change. See id. So while Johnson is correct that the 2023 amendment introduced unusually long sen- tences as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” that the Dis- trict Court could consider, his reliance on that amendment is mis- placed. The upshot is that the amendment Johnson relies on does not apply in this appeal. But as the government points out, nothing precludes Johnson from filing a new motion for compassionate re- lief in the District Court based on the 2023 amendment. III. Johnson abandoned significant arguments raised in the Dis- trict Court, and the 2023 Sentencing Guideline amendment he re- lies on does not apply retroactively. The District Court correctly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion. We affirm. AFFIRMED.