Mar 31 2026
11th Cir. 1:97-cr-00509-JEM-2 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEONCIO PEREZ

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Leoncio Perez's motion for compassionate release, ruling that his advanced age and medical conditions did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction. The court held that the district court properly weighed the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and found Perez's history and the nature of his offenses precluded leniency.

Mar 31 2026
10th Cir. 5:23-CR-00278-HE-7 Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FEI XIE

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Fei Xie's conviction and 120-month sentence, ruling that the district court properly admitted witness testimony and an organizational chart under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court further held that Xie's role in financing and managing the drug trafficking organization justified the application of the organizer/leader sentencing enhancement.

Mar 31 2026
11th Cir. 3:24-cr-00112-TKW-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAFAEL SANCHEZ-DE LA ROSA

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 46-month prison sentence for illegal reentry after removal, rejecting arguments that a sentencing enhancement for a post-removal DUI was applied in error. The court held that the enhancement was proper under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant's history of impaired driving.

Mar 30 2026
11th Cir. 3:24-cr-00069-TKW-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DERRELL D. ROMAN

The Eleventh Circuit granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw from a direct criminal appeal after an independent review found no arguable issues of merit. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, concluding that the appeal lacked legal substance.

Mar 30 2026
11th Cir. 9:11-cr-80176-WPD-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CALEB PRINCE

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a federal sentence of 24 months for supervised release violations, ruling that the district court properly ordered it to run consecutively to an existing state sentence. The court held that federal judges retain broad discretion to select consecutive sentences and that the Sentencing Guidelines explicitly favor this approach for release violations.

Mar 30 2026
11th Cir. 3:24-cr-00107-TKW-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL STANTON, JR

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Christopher Stanton Jr.'s convictions for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and as a convicted felon. The court rejected Stanton's novel Second Amendment challenge, ruling that binding precedent forecloses the argument regarding felon possession while the drug trafficking enhancement argument failed to meet the plain error standard.

Mar 30 2026
11th Cir. 3:23-cr-00010-TCB-RGV-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARTHUR GENE YOUNG

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Arthur Young's 168-month sentence for felon in possession of a firearm, rejecting all five sentencing enhancement challenges. The court held that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and that the sentence was substantively reasonable given the danger Young posed to society.

Mar 30 2026
11th Cir. 4:11-cr-00037-RH-CAS-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE MISAEL GARFIAS-GARCIA

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a federal prisoner's motion for sentence reduction, ruling that time served and rehabilitation efforts do not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons. The court granted the government's motion for summary affirmance, noting the appeal was frivolous given the defendant's prior unsuccessful attempts to raise these same claims.

Mar 30 2026
1st Cir. 25-1157 Panel Decision

UNITED STATES v. AIZAVIER ROACHE

The First Circuit affirmed a fifty-seven-month sentence for conspiracy to traffic firearms, rejecting the appellant's argument that the district court erred by applying a sentencing enhancement based on a co-conspirator's out-of-court statements. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the reliability of the co-conspirator's testimony regarding the defendant's role in the scheme.