United States v. Leoncio Perez

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.