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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
