[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10359

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO SUAREZ VILLA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20656-RNS-3

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10359 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10359

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Suarez Villa, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, 

appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Suarez Villa was convicted in 2018 of 

conspiracy to commit drug trafficking on the high seas and sentenced to 120 months in prison. In 2021, he filed a motion under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) seeking early release based in part on his wife’s 

medical condition, which he said made her unable to care for their 

two children, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The district 

court ruled that, even assuming Suarez Villa’s wife’s medical condition made him eligible for early release, the statutory sentencing 

factors weighed against granting his motion. 

Section 3582(c) gives the district courts limited authority to 

reduce the sentences of defendants for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). But even if a prisoner 

demonstrates such a reason, and so is eligible for a sentence reduction, the court may deny the motion if it finds that the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors would not support a reduction. United States v. 

Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). 

The weight to give any particular § 3553(a) factor, whether 

great or slight, is committed to the district court’s sound discretion. 

Id. at 1241; United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 

2021). “Even so, [a] district court abuses its discretion when it 

USCA11 Case: 22-10359 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 2 of 4
22-10359 Opinion of the Court 3

(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant 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.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (quotation 

marks omitted).

An order granting or denying compassionate release under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) generally must indicate that the district court has 

considered “all applicable § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Cook, 

998 F.3d 1180, 1184–85 (11th Cir. 2021). But “a district court need 

not exhaustively analyze each § 3553(a) factor or articulate its findings in great detail,” and an acknowledgement by the court that it 

has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is 

ordinarily sufficient. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (quotation marks 

omitted). 

Suarez Villa contends that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors and failed to consider that 

he lacked criminal history, that he would be deported upon his release and so would not pose a danger to the public, and that he has 

taken responsibility for his crime. 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a sentence reduction was not supported by the 

§ 3553(a) factors. The court was not required to expressly discuss 

all Suarez Villa’s mitigating evidence or every § 3553(a) factor. See 

id. And it expressly referenced the various favorable grounds Suarez Villa raised in his motion and the government’s arguments in 

response. Ultimately, the court concluded that, even assuming the 

USCA11 Case: 22-10359 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10359

medical condition of Suarez Villa’s wife constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason, early release was not warranted for 

several reasons: (a) the “astounding” amount of cocaine (1,100 kilograms) he had trafficked; (b) his admitted untruthfulness in attempting to cooperate with the government; and (c) the fact that 

he “ha[d] only served a little over 40% of his ten-year sentence.” 

These facts, in the court’s view, warranted denial of the motion 

“[i]n order to promote respect for the law, punish this defendant, 

and deter others.” 

The district court’s explanation is sufficient to show that it 

properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and had a reasoned basis 

for exercising its discretion to deny Suarez Villa the extraordinary 

remedy of a sentence reduction. We also cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that a sentence reduction was not warranted on the facts of this case. The court relied on valid reasons, supported by the record, for denying the motion, and we cannot reweigh the factors ourselves. 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the denial of Suarez Villa’s

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction.1 

1 The government’s motion for summary affirmance is therefore GRANTED. 

See Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1076 n.6 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining 

that summary disposition is warranted where, as here, “the result is clear as a 

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome”). 

Its motion to stay the briefing schedule is denied as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10359 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 4 of 4