Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14165 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/03/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14165 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BOBBY HENRY HOLT, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cr-00038-JES-M_M-1 ____________________ Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Bobby Holt appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and USCA11 Case: 25-14165 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/03/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14165 his subsequent motion for reconsideration. He argues that the dis- trict court abused its discretion by finding that he had not demon- strated that he was the only person available to care for his inca- pacitated parents, and that it ignored the evidence that he pre- sented showing that was rehabilitated and no longer a danger to the community. We review “whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)” de novo. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021) (italics omitted). We review a district court’s denial of an eligible movant’s request for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act for an abuse of discre- tion. United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2023). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than plead- ings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally con- strued.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (italics omitted). We review a district court’s denial of a mo- tion for reconsideration in a criminal action for abuse of discretion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). “Generally, a district court may not modify a term of impris- onment once imposed . . . .” United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005). However, a defendant may move for com- passionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A district court may grant compassionate release if (1) an extraor- dinary and compelling reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduction would be consistent with § 1B1.13; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of compassionate release. United States v. Tinker, 14 USCA11 Case: 25-14165 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/03/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-14165 Opinion of the Court 3 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). When the district court finds that one of these three prongs is not met, it need not examine the other prongs. Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348-50. A district court must impose a “sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth” in § 3553(a)(2), which are the need for the sentence to reflect the seri- ousness of the offense, promote respect for law, provide just pun- ishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and pro- vide the defendant with needed correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district court must also consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the types of sentences that are available; (3) the appropriate types of sentences and sentencing range estab- lished by the sentencing guidelines; (4) policy statements by the Sentencing Commission; (5) the need to avoid sentencing dispari- ties between similarly situated defendants; and (6) the need to pro- vide restitution. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). “The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit- ted to the sound discretion of the district court.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (quotation marks omitted). However, “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration to rel- evant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. (quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). We do not take a court’s USCA11 Case: 25-14165 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/03/2026 Page: 4 of 5 4 Opinion of the Court 25-14165 failure to discuss certain mitigating evidence to mean “that the court erroneously ignored or failed to consider this evidence in de- termining” a sentence. United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “[A]n acknowl- edgement by the district court that it considered the § 3553(a) fac- tors and the parties’ arguments is sufficient.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241. “A sentence may be affirmed so long as the record indicates that the district court considered a number of the factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history of recidivism, and the types of sentences available.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Motions “for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Cummings v. Dep’t of Corr., 757 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Holt’s motion for compassionate release. It was within the district court’s discretion to weigh the seriousness of Holt’s offenses and the need to protect the community more heavily than Holt’s pur- ported rehabilitation. And because the court properly found that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release, we need not reach whether an extraordinary and compelling reason existed to justify release or whether Holt remained a danger to the community. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to deny compassionate release. USCA11 Case: 25-14165 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/03/2026 Page: 5 of 5 25-14165 Opinion of the Court 5 We also affirm the district court’s denial of Holt’s motion for reconsideration. The district court considered the two new letters submitted with the motion—which merely reiterated the points previously raised—and concluded that its opinion had not changed. More significantly, the district court also expressly reaffirmed its alternative holding—i.e. that “the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors weighed against compassionate release,” Order Denying Reconsideration, Dist. Ct. Doc. 170 at 2—the holding upon which we rely. We therefore also affirm the district court’s denial of reconsideration. AFFIRMED.1 1 The Government’s motion to seal portions of the record is GRANTED.