United States v. Leoncio Perez

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 1 of 10

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11855 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LEONCIO PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:97-cr-00509-JEM-2 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Leoncio Perez appeals the district court’s denial of his mo- tion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

After careful consideration, we affirm.

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 2 of 10

In 1997, a federal grand jury charged Perez with one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. Before trial, the government notified Perez that it intended to seek enhanced sentences for each count based on his previous convictions for two felony drug offenses: (1) a 1995 Florida conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana and (2) a 1985 fed- eral conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). Perez’s criminal case was tried to a jury, which found him guilty on both counts. The jury made no finding regarding the drug quantity in- volved. 1 At the sentencing hearing, the district court found Perez re- sponsible for 616.4 grams of crack cocaine. Because the crimes of conviction involved 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and Perez had two previous convictions for felony drug offenses, the district court determined that he faced a mandatory life sentence on each count. The court imposed a life sentence.

In 2024, Perez, through counsel, sought a sentence reduc- tion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). When he filed the motion, Pe-

See 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 3 of 10

24-11855 Opinion of the Court 3 rez was 75 years old and had served over 26 years of his life sen- tence. In his motion, he acknowledged that to be eligible for a re- duction, he had to establish that extraordinary and compelling rea- sons warranted a sentence reduction under § 1B1.13 of the Sentenc- ing Guidelines. He advanced three arguments why there were ex- traordinary and compelling reasons.

First, he pointed to his advanced age. Under § 1B1.13(b)(2), he was eligible for a reduction based on advanced age if he: (1) was at least 65 years old, (2) had served at least 10 years of his term of imprisonment, and (3) was “experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(2). Perez asserted that he was expe- riencing a serious deterioration in his health due to a variety of medical conditions, including vision problems. Along with his mo- tion, he submitted his medical records from the Bureau of Prisons and several declarations, including declarations from two physi- cians.

Second, Perez argued that he was eligible for a reduction un- der § 1B1.13(b)(6) because he was serving an unusually long sen- tence. In considering whether a defendant is serving an unusually long sentence, a court may consider a change in the law so long as the “change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed.” Id. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Perez argued that because of changes in the law, he would now face a mandatory minimum of years, not life.

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 4 of 10

2 The other two disciplinary infractions were from 1998 for failing to obey an order and failing to following safety regulations and from 2003 for smoking in an unauthorized area.

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 5 of 10

24-11855 Opinion of the Court 5 Perez acknowledged that to receive a sentence reduction, the court had to find not only that he was eligible for a sentence reduction because extraordinary and compelling reasons sup- ported a reduction, but also that a reduction was consistent with the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 3 He argued that the § 3553(a) factors supported his immediate release from prison. He asserted that reducing his sentence from life to a sen- tence of time served “would still reflect the seriousness of the of- fense and provide just punishment.” Doc. 134 at 24. He urged that spending 26 years in prison for his crimes was sufficient to serve the purposes of deterrence and protecting the public. He also pointed to his history and characteristics, including the Bureau of Prisons’ finding that he was at low risk of recidivism. And he again asked the court to consider the evidence of his rehabilitation.

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 6 of 10

After “careful consideration of the briefing and record,” the court denied Perez’s motion for a sentence reduction. Doc. 151 at 1. It concluded that he “failed to demonstrate that the § 3553(a) sen- tencing factors favor release.” Id. at 2. It explained that he had “a significant criminal history and the instant offense involved a large amount of crack cocaine.” Id. It also agreed with the government that, under the current law, Perez would be a career offender and face a guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. The court concluded that the “seriousness and nature of [Perez’s] of- fenses do not support a reduction in his sentence.” Id. at 2–3.

USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 7 of 10

24-11855 Opinion of the Court 7 The court denied Perez’s motion on the alternative ground that he had not established an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. First, it rejected his argument that his ad- vanced age was an extraordinary and compelling reason under § 1B1.13(b)(2), concluding that he had not shown that his health conditions were sufficiently severe. Instead, the court found, based on his medical records, that “his health conditions are being well- managed during his incarceration.” Id. at 3. Second, it acknowl- edged that § 1B1.13(b)(6) purported to permit a defendant to estab- lish extraordinary circumstances based on changes in the law. But it concluded that the United States Sentencing Commission ex- ceeded its authority in promulgating this provision, which it thought was contrary to the underlying statute’s “text, structure, and purpose.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Third, the court concluded that Perez had not established other reasons for a sentence reduction. It explained that “rehabilitation of a defendant alone cannot be considered an extraordinary and compelling rea- son.” Id. (citation modified). “[G]iven the amount of time [Perez] has spent incarcerated,” the court said, “his limited rehabilitative and educational improvements, even in combination with [his] other arguments, are not ‘extraordinary and compelling.’” Id. This is Perez’s appeal.

II.

“We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen- tence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” United States v. USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 8 of 10

A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de- fendant’s sentence; it may do so “only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 606 (11th Cir. 2015).

A federal statute authorizes a district court to reduce a term of im- prisonment when three requirements are satisfied: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for granting a sentence re- duction under § 1B1.13 of the Guidelines; (2) the § 3553(a) factors favor a reduction; and (3) awarding a sentence reduction “wouldn’t endanger any person or the community.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). If a defendant fails to satisfy even one of these re- quirements, a court cannot grant relief and need not analyze the remaining requirements. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348.

Section 1B1.13 sets forth a list of what qualifies as extraordi- nary and compelling reasons. This list includes: (1) medical circum- stances; (2) old age, if the prisoner is also “experiencing a serious deterioration in his physical or mental health”; (3) family circum- stances; (4) his status as a victim of abuse while incarcerated; or (5) other circumstances or combination of circumstances that “are USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 9 of 10

24-11855 Opinion of the Court 9 similar in gravity” to the four enumerated circumstances. U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13(b)(1)–(5). A defendant also may establish extraordinary and compelling reasons based on an unusually long sentence. If “a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment,” a court may consider “a change in the law” when “determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason” for a sentence reduction. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(6). For a court to consider a change in the law, the change must “produce a gross disparity between the sen- tence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed.” Id. To grant a sentence reduction, a district court also must con- clude that the § 3553(a) factors support a reduction. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237. Although a court must consider “all applicable § 3553(a) factors,” it “need not exhaustively analyze each § 3553(a) factor or articulate its findings in great detail.” Id. at 1240–41 (cita- tion modified). In addition, “the weight given to each factor is com- mitted to the sound discretion of the district court,” and it may at- tach “great weight to one § 3553(a) factor over others.” United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2022).

On appeal, Perez challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. First, he argues that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. He says that he established his eligibility for a sentence reduction under (1) § 1B1.13(b)(2) because of his age together with his declining USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 10 of 10

We need not decide the first issue because we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Perez’s motion based on its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. Although the district court’s dis- cussion of the § 3553(a) factors was brief, its explanation was ade- quate. After all, a district court is not required to address “each of the § 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evidence.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (citation modified). “Instead, an acknowledgement by the district court that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is sufficient.” Id. The court’s order here included such an acknowledgement—the court stated that it had considered the arguments in the parties’ briefs as well as the evidence they sub- mitted into the record. Although the court did not expressly discuss Perez’s age-related health conditions or his rehabilitation in the portion of its order discussing the § 3553(a) factors, it discussed these arguments in other parts of its order, which shows that it con- sidered them. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court failed to adequately explain its decision or otherwise abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.

AFFIRMED.