Court Opinion

ID: 9379977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 20:00:40.818835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.449041
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-10806    Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 03/16/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 20-10806
                          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-FAM-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 20-10806     Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 03/16/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court               20-10806

           ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                        UNITED STATES
       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              We previously issued an opinion affirming the denial of
       appellant Leoncio Perez’s motion for a sentence reduction pursu-
       ant to the First Step Act of 2018. The Supreme Court vacated our
       opinion and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of
       Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022).
              In our original opinion, we concluded that the district court
       lacked the authority to reduce Perez’s life sentences. We relied on
       our decision in United States v. Jones, which held that for purpos-
       es of determining whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence
       reduction, a district court is “bound by a previous finding of drug
       quantity that could have been used to determine the [defendant’s]
       statutory penalty at the time of sentencing.” 962 F.3d 1290, 1303
       (11th Cir. 2020). Because Perez was convicted and sentenced be-
       fore the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
       530 U.S. 466 (2000), we looked to the drug-quantity finding made
       at sentencing to determine what Perez’s statutory penalty range
       would have been under the Fair Sentencing Act. Because the dis-
       trict court found at sentencing that Perez was responsible for
       616.4 grams of crack cocaine and because given this drug quantity
       Perez remained subject to mandatory life sentences under the
USCA11 Case: 20-10806      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 03/16/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       20-10806               Opinion of the Court                         3

       Fair Sentencing Act, we concluded that he was ineligible for a sen-
       tence reduction.
               After we issued the original opinion in this case, the Su-
       preme Court issued its decision in Concepcion, addressing the fac-
       tors a district court may consider when deciding whether to exer-
       cise its discretion to award an eligible defendant a sentence reduc-
       tion under the First Step Act. 142 S. Ct. at 2396. The defendant in
       Concepcion was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First
       Step Act because he was convicted of a “covered offense” for
       which the penalty range had been lowered by the Fair Sentencing
       Act. Id. at 2396–97. In urging the district court to exercise its dis-
       cretion and reduce his sentence, the defendant asked the district
       court to consider changes in the law that occurred after his sen-
       tencing as well as subsequent factual developments, including ev-
       idence of his rehabilitation while he was incarcerated. Id. at 2397.
       The district court refused to consider these developments, con-
       cluding that it could “consider[] only the changes in law that the
       Fair Sentencing Act enacted.” Id. (internal quotation marks omit-
       ted). The Supreme Court disagreed. Looking to the traditional
       “discretion federal judges hold at . . . sentencing modification
       hearings,” the Court concluded that a district court may “consider
       intervening changes of law or fact” when deciding whether to ex-
       ercise its “discretion to reduce a sentence.” Id. at 2404. The Court
       held that a district court could consider “evidence of rehabilitation
       or other changes in law” when deciding whether to exercise its
       discretion. Id. at 2404–05.
USCA11 Case: 20-10806     Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 03/16/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                20-10806

              After a Supreme Court remand based on Concepcion in
       another case, this Court held that “Concepcion did not abrogate
       the reasoning of our decision” in Jones addressing when a defend-
       ant is eligible for a sentence reduction. United States v. Jackson,
       58 F.4th 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 2023). Because the binding law in
       our circuit has not changed, we reinstate our prior decision and
       affirm the district court’s order denying Perez’s motion.
             AFFIRMED.