USCA11 Case: 25-10789 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10789 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DWIGHT CARTER, SR., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20470-JEM-1 ____________________ Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Dwight Carter, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). Carter argues that his sentence is “unusually long” USCA11 Case: 25-10789 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10789 due to changes in the sentencing structure of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) since his sentencing. Carter also argues that a reduction is justi- fied because the national average sentence for murder is less than years, he was a youthful offender at the time of his crimes, and he no longer poses a danger to this community. Carter further ar- gues that the § 3553(a) factors favor a reduction of his sentence.

We review de novo whether a prisoner is eligible for a sen- tence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), see United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021), and we review “a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. “Generally, a district court may not modify a term of impris- onment once imposed . . . .” United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005). However, a defendant may move for com- passionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

A district court may grant compassionate release if (1) an extraor- dinary and compelling reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduction would be consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; and (3) the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors weigh in favor of compassionate release. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). When the district court finds that one of these three prongs is not met, it need not examine the other prongs. Gi- ron, 15 F.4th at 1348-50.

A district court must impose a “sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth” in § 3553(a)(2), which are the need for the sentence to reflect the USCA11 Case: 25-10789 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 Page: 3 of 4

25-10789 Opinion of the Court 3 seriousness of the offense, promote respect for law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant with needed correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district court must also consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and char- acteristics of the defendant; (2) the types of sentences that are avail- able; (3) the appropriate types of sentences and sentencing range established by the sentencing guidelines; (4) policy statements by the Sentencing Commission; (5) the need to avoid sentencing dis- parities between similarly situated defendants; and (6) the need to provide restitution. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).

“The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit- ted to the sound discretion of the district court.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (citation modified). However, “[a] district court abuses its dis- cretion when 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 judg- ment in considering the proper factors.” Id. (citation modified).

Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carter’s motion. Carter’s life sentence com- ports with the § 3553(a) factors, namely the need to reflect the se- riousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and promote deterrence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was thus within the district court’s discretion to weigh the seriousness of Carter’s conduct, which resulted in the killing of a security guard, more heavily than it weighed the mitigating factors such as USCA11 Case: 25-10789 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10789 Carter’s rehabilitation efforts. Because the § 3553(a) factors do not favor relief, we conclude that Carter is not eligible for a sentence reduction and affirm the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release.

AFFIRMED.