USCA11 Case: 24-13112 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13112 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

LEON D. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-14030-JEM-2 ____________________

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Leon Clarke, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motions for companionate release and reconsider- ation. Clarke contends that the district court should have reduced USCA11 Case: 24-13112 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13112

his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) because his sentence would be shorter under current law. He also contends that the dis- trict court’s analysis in its decision denying his compassionate re- lease motion is inadequate. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compas- sionate release in two steps. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). First, we review whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) de novo. Id. Second, we review the district court’s denial of a com- passionate release motion for abuse of discretion. Id. A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures, makes clearly erroneous factual find- ings, or fails to explain its decision adequately enough for us to meaningfully review it. Id. The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is eligible for compassionate release. See United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a defendant bears of the burden of establishing that a retroactive amendment lowered his guideline range). We review denials of motions for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United States v. Llewlyn, 879 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018). However, we review the district court’s application of stat- utes authorizing a sentence reduction de novo. Id. District courts can only grant a motion for reconsideration when the movant (1) presents newly discovered evidence or (2) demonstrates that the district court’s order contained a “manifest error of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re USCA11 Case: 24-13112 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13112 Opinion of the Court 3

Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 2009)). Motions for recon- sideration cannot present evidence or arguments that the movant presented or could have presented prior to the district court issuing its final order. Id. To appeal a district court decision, criminal defendants must file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the entry of the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). A defendant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal does not deprive us of jurisdiction, so we will only enforce the deadline if the government objects. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2009). As an initial matter, Clarke’s notice of appeal is untimely as to his compassionate release motion because Clarke filed his notice of appeal more than 14 days after the district court entered its order denying his compassionate release motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Because the government objects, we will not consider Clarke’s appeal of his compassionate release motion. See Lopez, 562 F.3d at 1312-13. We now turn to Clarke’s challenge regarding the motion for reconsideration. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Clarke’s motion for reconsideration as none of Clarke’s arguments in his motion for reconsideration presented newly discovered evi- dence or demonstrated that the district court’s order denying him compassionate release contained a manifest error of law or fact. See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343. We thus affirm the district court’s order denying Clarke’s motion for reconsideration. AFFIRMED.