[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13848

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRYANT KEITH BENTLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:97-cr-00014-RAL-TGW-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13848 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13848

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Bentley, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial 

of his second motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court denied Bentley’s second motion

for the same reasons it denied his first motion—that he presents a 

clear and present danger to the community based on the violent 

nature of the crimes he committed and that he failed to establish 

an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The United States moves for summary affirmance. Because “the position of [the United States] . . . is clearly 

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

as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we affirm.

We review a denial of a prisoner’s motion for compassionate 

release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 

911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies 

an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making 

the determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings. 

United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1194 (11th Cir. 2011). 

A district court has no inherent authority to modify a defendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a statute 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 

USCA11 Case: 23-13848 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-13848 Opinion of the Court 3

section 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 

community within the meaning of § 1B1.13’s policy statement.” 

United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). The district court may consider these factors 

in any order, and the absence of any of the three forecloses a sentence reduction. See id. at 1237–38. A district court need not review

the sentencing factors if it finds either that no extraordinary and 

compelling reason for release exists or that the defendant is a danger to the community. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347 

(11th Cir. 2021).

Summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., 

406 F.2d at 1162. The district court denied Bentley’s first motion 

for compassionate release after finding that he presented “a clear 

and present danger to the community based on the violent nature 

of the crimes he committed,” including using a firearm during several bank robberies. To support his second motion for compassionate release, Bentley provided “updated” letters from family and 

friends regarding their continued support for him and evidence of 

his additional rehabilitative work since he filed his first motion, but 

the district court acted within its discretion in finding that Bentley

still posed a continuing danger to the community based on his violent offenses. And we need not decide whether he has identified an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. 

See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38.

USCA11 Case: 23-13848 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13848

Because there is no substantial question as to the outcome 

of the case, we GRANT the motion for summary affirmance and 

GRANT the government’s motion for leave to file its reply out of 

time. See Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13848 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2024 Page: 4 of 4