USCA11 Case: 24-13236 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13236 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

CONFESOR PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:96-cr-00218-DMM-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and WILSON, Cir- cuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Confesor Perez appeals the denial of his third motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that USCA11 Case: 24-13236 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13236

we cannot meaningfully review the denial of that motion because the district court did not discuss the statutory sentencing factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court ruled that Perez poses a dan- ger to the community and the statutory sentencing factors counsel against his release. The government moves for summary affir- mance. Because Perez does not challenge the ruling that he poses a danger to the community, we grant the government’s motion and affirm. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review the denial of an eligible prisoner’s motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court may grant compassionate release for extraor- dinary and compelling reasons if release would be consistent with both the applicable policy statements under the Sentencing Guide- lines, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). The absence of even one condition forecloses a sentence reduction. Id. at 1237–38. USCA11 Case: 24-13236 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13236 Opinion of the Court 3

The government is clearly right as a matter of law. The rul- ing that Perez poses a danger to the community is an independent ground that forecloses a sentence reduction. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (“[A] court may reduce a term of imprison- ment . . . if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . . . the court determines that . . . the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community[.]”). Perez offers no arguments to challenge that ruling. His failure to do so is fatal to his appeal. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When an appellant fails to chal- lenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”); see also United States v. Maher, 955 F.3d 880, 885 (11th Cir. 2020). So we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. AFFIRMED.