[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12980

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACOBO FELICIANO-FRANCISCO,

a.k.a. Uriel Castillo-Ochoa,

a.k.a. Kiko, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

USCA11 Case: 22-12980 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12980

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00032-RH-EMT-1

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied Jacobo Feliciano-Francisco’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Feliciano-Francisco then filed with the district court a notice of intervening authority, which we construe as a motion for reconsideration. The district court entered an order explaining why the new 

authority didn’t affect its original order and stating that “no action 

will be taken.” Feliciano-Francisco appeals that second order. In 

particular, he argues that his intervening authority—Concepcion v. 

United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022)—overruled United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021). The government responds that 

Bryant isn’t relevant to the district court’s original order. We agree

and summarily affirm.1

Before it may grant a reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must find that three necessary conditions are satisfied: 

1 We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). Summary 

disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly 

right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is 

frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

USCA11 Case: 22-12980 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 2 of 4
22-12980 Opinion of the Court 3

(1) “support in the § 3553(a) factors,” (2) “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” and (3) “adherence to § 1B1.13’s policy statement.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 

2021). The absence of any single condition forecloses a sentence 

reduction. 

Here, the district court’s original order focused on the first

of these conditions. Reconsidering the § 3553(a) factors, the court 

decided “as a matter of discretion that Mr. Feliciano’s sentence 

should not be reduced at this time.” 

The district court refrained from deciding the second or 

third conditions. The court mentioned that Bryant was unfavorable to Feliciano-Francisco on the third, “policy statement” condition, but it expressed the view that future events might overturn or 

override Bryant. Importantly, though, rather than stay the proceeding pending any such developments, the court proceeded to 

deny relief because, in its words, even if Feliciano-Francisco satisfied the third condition, “the motion to reduce this sentence would 

be denied anyway.”

Feliciano-Francisco’s argument in his intervening-authority 

filing didn’t challenge the district court’s determination that the 

first condition wasn’t satisfied. Instead, he argued that Concepcion

overruled Bryant. But arguments about the third condition are irrelevant to the district court’s decision, which, by its terms, was

based on the first condition. 

The district court, therefore, correctly denied the motion for 

reconsideration. Because the government’s position on appeal is 

USCA11 Case: 22-12980 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12980

correct as a matter of law, its motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.2 

2 We don’t understand Feliciano-Francisco to have appealed the district court’s 

original order. To the extent he did, his appeal was untimely. Even assuming 

the district court would have granted an extension for “excusable neglect or 

good cause,” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), Feliciano-Francisco had 44 days to appeal. 

See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that criminal appeal timelines apply to § 3582(c) motions); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 

He noticed this appeal more than 70 days after the original order. Motions 

for reconsideration like his—i.e., those filed after 14 days, even if before 44 

days—do not toll this time period. United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 

(11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). 

USCA11 Case: 22-12980 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 4 of 4