United States v. Curtis Slade

USCA11 Case: 25-13319 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13319 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CURTIS SLADE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60123-RS-1 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13319 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13319 Curtis Slade appeals the denial of his pro se motion for a sen- tence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that his con- viction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, id. § 924(c)(1)(A), is unconstitutional. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND In June 2021, officers in Hollywood, Florida, observed a known drug dealer engage in a hand-to-hand transaction with Slade, who then entered a vehicle with another passenger and drove away. Officers followed Slade’s vehicle and turned on their emergency lights. Slade stopped, and the officers told him and the passenger to exit the vehicle.

Officers determined that Slade’s driver’s license was sus- pended, told him that his vehicle would be towed, and asked if there was anything in the vehicle that he should not have. Slade told the officers that, in the center console, there was a firearm, which they found loaded along with another magazine. When the officers discovered that Slade was on release for resisting arrest with violence and had two felony convictions, they arrested him.

An inventory search of the vehicle found bags containing 27.8 grams of cocaine, one gram of fentanyl, and 138.1 grams of meth- amphetamine.

A grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Slade with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C); pos- session of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and possession of a firearm and ammunition USCA11 Case: 25-13319 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-13319 Opinion of the Court 3 as a convicted felon, id. § 922(g)(1). Slade pleaded guilty to the charge under section 924(c), and the government agreed to dismiss the other charges.

Slade’s presentence investigation report stated that his guidelines range was the minimum statutory term of imprison- ment, 60 months. Slade filed no objections to the report, and both parties requested that the district court impose the statutory man- datory minimum sentence. The district court sentenced Slade to 60 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised re- lease.

Three years later, Slade moved pro se for a sentence reduc- tion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argued, based on an unspecified amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, that his conviction was unconstitutional. The government responded that Slade’s chal- lenge to the legality of his conviction was not a basis for a sentenc- ing reduction under section 3582(c)(2). It also argued that Slade was ineligible for a sentence reduction and that the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a), weighed against a reduction. The district court denied Slade’s motion for the reasons “stated in the Govern- ment’s response.”

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen- tence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). We review the denial of an eligible defendant’s request for a sentence reduction for abuse of USCA11 Case: 25-13319 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13319 discretion. United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017).

III. DISCUSSION A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de- fendant’s sentence, and it may do so only when permitted by stat- ute or rule. United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir. 2015). Under section 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment for a defendant “who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subse- quently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . after con- sidering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The district court correctly ruled that Slade is ineligible for a sentence reduction. Slade failed to identify a retroactively applica- ble amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that would entitle him to a potential reduction. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d at 1248.

He instead argues that his conviction is illegal, but this collateral attack of his conviction must be brought in a motion to vacate his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000).

IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the denial of Slade’s motion for a sentence re- duction.