The opinion
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11855
I.
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-
1 The jury made no drug quantity finding because Perez was prosecuted be-
fore Apprendi v. New Jersey made clear that drug-quantity findings that increase
a defendant’s punishment must be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
15 years, not life.
USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 4 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11855
Third, relying on § 1B1.13(b)(5), Perez asserted that he had
established other reasons justifying a sentence reduction. Under
this provision, a defendant is eligible for a reduction if he estab-
lishes the existence of “any other circumstance or combination of
circumstances that . . . are similar in gravity to those described in
paragraphs (1) through (4)” of § 1B1.13(b). Id. § 1B1.13(b)(5). He ar-
gued that he satisfied this standard given the combined effect of his
age, deteriorating health, time already served, and rehabilitation
while in prison. He also urged the court to consider “the problem-
atic nature” of the government’s request for a § 851 enhancement
in his case, explaining that the government delayed filing the notice
that it was seeking the enhancement, which resulted in his manda-
tory life sentence, until just one week before his criminal trial be-
gan. Doc. 134 at 20. To show his rehabilitation, Perez submitted
prison records reflecting that in the 26 years of his incarceration, he
received only four disciplinary infractions, with the last incident oc-
curring in 2016. These records reflected that his most recent infrac-
tions were in 2014 for hitting another inmate with a closed fist and
in 2016 for fighting with another person and refusing to obey an
order. 2 He also introduced evidence that while incarcerated he
worked a variety of jobs, earned his GED, and completed over
200 hours of English as a second language classes.
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.
3 Under § 3553(a), a district court is required to impose a sentence that is “suf-
ficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the
statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the
seriousness of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punish-
ment; deter criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future
criminal conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id.
§ 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, the applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of
the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dis-
parities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
USCA11 Case: 24-11855 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 6 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 24-11855
The government opposed Perez’s motion. It argued that he
had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sen-
tence reduction. It also asserted that the § 3553(a) factors did not
support a reduction. As to the § 3553(a) factors, it emphasized the
seriousness of Perez’s crimes, pointing out that his offenses in-
volved a large quantity of crack cocaine, as well as his history and
characteristics, which included two previous felony drug convic-
tions. It stated that releasing him from prison after he had served
26 years would not “reflect the seriousness of his underlying of-
fense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, [or]
provide general deterrence.” Doc. 138 at 29. And it pointed out that
if he were sentenced under the current law, he would remain a ca-
reer offender and face a guidelines range of 360 months to life im-
prisonment. The government also disputed that Perez had been re-
habilitated because he had been disciplined multiple times while
incarcerated.
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
8 Opinion of the Court 24-11855
Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). “After eligibility is es-
tablished, we review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. “A district court
abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows
improper procedures in making its determination, or makes clearly
erroneous factual findings.” Id.
III.
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
10 Opinion of the Court 24-11855
health, (2) § 1B.13(b)(5) because other reasons of sufficient gravity
supported a sentence reduction, or (3) § 1B1.13(b)(6) because he
was serving an extraordinarily long sentence given changes to the
law since he was sentenced. Second, he challenges the district
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. He says that the district
court’s “rote” analysis of the factors was “insufficient.” Appellant’s
Br. 51.
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.