Background
Abel Rizo was convicted in 1997 of participating in a conspiracy to rob drug dealers at gunpoint and of related drug, Hobbs Act robbery, and firearm offenses. He received a total sentence of 468 months, including a consecutive five-year sentence for his first conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and a consecutive 20-year sentence for his second § 924(c) conviction in the same prosecution.
Congress amended § 924(c) in 2018 so that the enhanced penalty for a subsequent conviction generally applies only when the earlier conviction has already become final. Congress did not make that change retroactive for defendants, including Rizo, who had already been sentenced. In 2024, however, the district court treated the resulting sentencing disparity as an extraordinary and compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). It reduced the second § 924(c) sentence from 20 years to five years, producing a total sentence of 288 months and Rizo’s release from federal custody in December 2024. The government appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit first held that it had jurisdiction over the government’s appeal. The sentence-reduction order was final, and the government presented a cognizable claim under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(1) that the reduced sentence was imposed “in violation of law.” The court found jurisdiction regardless of whether it derived from § 3742(b) alone or from 28 U.S.C. § 1291 together with § 3742(b)’s authorization for the appeal.
On the merits, the court held that Rutherford v. United States controlled. Under Rutherford, Congress’s nonretroactive amendment to § 924(c), and the disparity it created between pre- and post-amendment sentences, cannot as a matter of law constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid to the extent it provides otherwise. The Eleventh Circuit therefore reversed and directed the district court to vacate Rizo’s amended sentence and reinstate his original sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A final order granting a compassionate-release sentence reduction may be appealed by the government when it presents a cognizable claim that the reduced sentence was imposed in violation of law.
- The sentencing disparity caused by the nonretroactive 2018 amendment to § 924(c) is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
- The district court must vacate Rizo’s 288-month amended sentence and reinstate his original 468-month sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Rutherford to foreclose compassionate-release relief based on § 924(c)’s anti-stacking amendment when Congress expressly declined to make that amendment retroactive. It also confirms a route for government appellate review of final sentence-reduction orders alleged to violate federal law.
For defendants serving pre-2018 stacked § 924(c) sentences, the disparity between the original sentence and the sentence likely imposed today cannot alone establish eligibility for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), notwithstanding the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement.