USA v. Lazaro Rivero

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-10768
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAZARO RIVERO,
a.k.a. Carlos Fegueroa
a.k.a. Alberto Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20555-KMM-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-10768 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10768
Before L UCK , LAGOA , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lazaro Rivero appeals the district court’s denial of his mo-
tion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
He asserts the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
After review,1 we affirm.
A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de-
fendant’s sentence and may only do so when it is authorized by a
statute or rule.
United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605-06
(11th Cir. 2015). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a defendant himself may
initiate a motion for compassionate release “
after the defendant
has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of
the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf
or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the
warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Although the exhaustion re-
quirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a non-jurisdictional
claims-processing rule, a defendant must show that he satisfied
the requirement if the government raises the issue before the dis-
1 We review
de novo a district court’s determination about a defendant’s eli-
gibility for an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) sentence reduction.
United States v. Bry-
ant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court’s decision to deny a
defendant’s motion for compassionate release is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion.
United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021).
USCA11 Case: 21-10768 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

21-10768 Opinion of the Court 3
trict court.
United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir.
2021) (analyzing merits of application because “the government
has not asserted that [the defendant] failed to comply with” the
administrative requirements).
The district court did not err by determining that Rivero
was ineligible for compassionate release because he did not ex-
haust his administrative remedies by requesting the Bureau of
Prisons to file a motion on his behalf.
See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the Government raised this issue below,
Rivero was required to demonstrate that he exhausted his admin-
istrative remedies, but he did not.
See Harris, 989 F.3d at 911.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying his motion, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-10768 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --