Court Opinion

ID: 9401529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 15:01:47.548824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.319280
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10248    Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 06/13/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10248
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RONY OCHOA GUERRERO,
       a.k.a. Rony Ochoa Guerrero,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20807-DMM-1
USCA11 Case: 23-10248      Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 06/13/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10248

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Rony Ochoa Guerrero, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial
       of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
       The district court ruled that Ochoa Guerrero failed to identify an
       extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant early release,
       U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a), weighed against granting relief. The United States moves
       for a summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. Be-
       cause “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 grant the motion for summary affir-
       mance and deny as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
              In 2013, Ochoa Guerrero pleaded guilty to one count of con-
       spiring to commit and two counts of committing Hobbs Act rob-
       bery, 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and one count of brandishing a firearm
       in furtherance of a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In his
       written plea agreement, he and the government agreed to recom-
       mend a term of 180 months of imprisonment and stated that this
       sentence was consistent with the statutory sentencing factors, id.
       § 3553(a). The district court sentenced Ochoa Guerrero to a total
       sentence of 180 months of imprisonment.
USCA11 Case: 23-10248      Document: 11-1       Date Filed: 06/13/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10248                Opinion of the Court                          3

               In 2022, Ochoa Guerrero moved for compassionate release,
       id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that intervening changes in the law
       could constitute “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to reduce
       his sentence, and the statutory sentencing factors supported a sen-
       tence reduction. He also argued that his sentence would be signifi-
       cantly reduced under the amendment to section 924(c) in the First
       Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 403(a), 132 Stat. 5194, 5221–
       22, but he did not explain why.
               The district court denied Ochoa Guerrero’s motion. The dis-
       trict court ruled that he failed to exhaust his administrative reme-
       dies and that, even if he had, he failed to establish an extraordinary
       or compelling reason for compassionate release. The district court
       also ruled that compassionate release would be inconsistent with
       the statutory sentencing factors and that section 403 of the First
       Step Act did not apply to his conviction.
               Summary affirmance is appropriate because there is no sub-
       stantial question that Ochoa Guerrero is not entitled to compas-
       sionate release. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162. Ochoa Guerrero
       argues that his “extraordinary and compelling reason” for compas-
       sionate release is that he lacks a valid predicate offense to support
       his section 924(c) conviction. But section 3582(c) does not author-
       ize a district court to consider collateral attacks on a prisoner’s con-
       viction. Even if it did, his plea agreement specified that his section
       924(c) conviction was predicated on substantive Hobbs Act rob-
       bery, which is a valid “crime of violence” under the elements
       clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337,
USCA11 Case: 23-10248     Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 06/13/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10248

       1340–41 (11th Cir. 2016). And his argument that the district court
       was not bound by the policy of the Sentencing Commission,
       U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, in deciding what constitutes an “extraordinary
       and compelling reason” is foreclosed by precedent. See United States
       v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1247–48 (11th Cir. 2021). Because Ochoa
       Guerrero failed to establish an “extraordinary and compelling rea-
       son” warranting compassionate release, we need not address his
       argument that the statutory sentencing factors weighed in favor of
       reducing his sentence. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234,
       1237–39 (11th Cir. 2021).
             We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance, AFFIRM
       the denial of Ochoa Guerrero’s motion for compassionate release,
       and DENY AS MOOT the motion to stay the briefing schedule.