United States v. Efrain Rodriguez-Candelaria

USCA11 Case: 25-11922 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11922 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EFRAIN RODRIGUEZ-CANDELARIA, a.k.a. Tony, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00327-VMC-NHA-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11922 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11922 Efrain Rodriguez-Candelaria appeals the district court’s de- nial of his motion for compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2004, Rodriguez-Candelaria was found guilty following a bench trial of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 846; possession of ammunition and a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2; and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court sentenced Rodriguez-Candelaria to a 420-month term of im- prisonment followed by 5 years of supervised release. He is pro- jected to be released on June 21, 2034.

In August 2024, Rodriguez-Candelaria moved for compas- sionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He submitted (1) his inmate disciplinary record, which alleged that he was sanc- tioned in June 2010 for refusing to work; (2) his inmate education record, which reflected that he completed his GED and took courses in, among other things, drawing, parenting, and nutrition; (3) a character letter he wrote, in which he alleged that he worked a UNICOR job and embraced Christianity during his incarceration; and (4) character letters from his daughter, his mother, and two of his sisters.

Rodriguez-Candelaria argued that compassionate release is appropriate because the underlying conviction would no longer USCA11 Case: 25-11922 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 3 of 6

25-11922 Opinion of the Court 3 qualify for career offender designation and thus the sentence he would receive today would be shorter than the sentence he re- ceived at sentencing. Rodriguez-Candelaria also notes his rehabil- itation efforts including the completion of his GED, his work in a UNICOR job since 2013, and his close relation to his family mem- bers who plan to house him upon his release.

The district court denied Rodriguez-Candelaria’s motion for compassionate release. The district court determined that, under the § 3553(a) factors, his criminal history weighed against release.

It observed that the seriousness of the offense conduct also weighed against release. The district court found that neither the seriousness of the offense nor deterrence would be met because Rodriguez-Candelaria had only served around 60 percent of his sentence. It acknowledged his positive efforts during his incarcer- ation but concluded that “these efforts [did] not alter [its] finding that Mr. Rodriguez-Candelaria [was] a danger to the community, and the need to protect the public, promote respect for the law, and deter future crimes weigh[ed] against his release at this time.”

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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. Gi- ron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). After eligibility is estab- lished, we will review the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an abuse of discretion. Id. A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, makes USCA11 Case: 25-11922 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 25-11922 findings of fact that are clearly erroneous, or commits a clear error of judgment. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911–12 (11th Cir. 2021). Abuse of discretion review “means that the district court had a range of choice” and that we “cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different conclusion.” Id. at 912 (quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de- fendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a stat- ute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir. 2015). A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(1)(A) “if (1) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor doing so, (2) there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for doing so, and . . . (3) doing so wouldn’t endanger any person or the commu- nity within the meaning of [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.13’s policy statement.”

United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (quota- tion marks omitted). The district court may consider these factors in any order, and the absence of any of the three forecloses a sen- tence reduction. See id. at 1237–38.

Factors under § 3553(a) that the district court must consider include the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate de- terrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant with any needed correctional treatment or training. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

It must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of sentences USCA11 Case: 25-11922 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 5 of 6

25-11922 Opinion of the Court 5 available, the applicable guidelines range, any pertinent policy statements, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities between similarly situated defendants. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3) (7). The weight given to any § 3553(a) factor is committed to the discretion of the district court. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241. However, “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration to rel- evant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. (quoted source omitted, alteration in original).

Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it reasonably found that Rodriguez-Candelaria’s rehabilitation efforts were outweighed by deterrence, respect for the law, protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense, and his history and characteristics. The district court stated that it re- viewed Rodriguez-Candelaria’s violent and drug-related criminal history, including trafficking in heroin, possession of heroin with intent to sell, domestic violence battery, trespassing, loitering and prowling, vehicle theft, possession of altered VIN numbers, oper- ating a chop shot, grant theft, battery, criminal mischief solicitation of prostitution, numerous driving offenses, in addition to the seri- ousness of his actions underlying Rodriguez-Candelaria’s offense of conviction. Based on that analysis, the district court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors weigh against compassionate release. These were factors that the district court was permitted to consider, and which were supported by the facts in the record. The district court had discretion to decide how much weight to assign each § 3553(a) USCA11 Case: 25-11922 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 25-11922 factor, and it did not abuse its discretion in reasoning that Rodri- guez-Candelaria’s original sentence reflected the seriousness of the offense, promoted respect for the law, and afforded adequate de- terrence. See id. at 1240–41.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that, here, the § 3553(a) sen- tencing factors do not favor compassionate release. We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Rodriguez-Candelaria’s motion for compassionate release.

AFFIRMED.