Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12687 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12687 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LONNIE LEE CODE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:02-cr-00009-SDM-UAM-2 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Lonnie Code, a federal prisoner represented by counsel, ap- peals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate re- lease under the First Step Act. Code argues that the district court USCA11 Case: 25-12687 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12687 abused its discretion by evaluating whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors favored keeping him incarcerated before considering whether he presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Har- ris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, makes clearly erroneous factual findings, or commits a clear error of judgment. Id. at 911– 12. Under the First Step Act, a defendant may file a motion for compassionate release. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115- 391, § 603, 132 Stat. 5194, 5238–39 (“First Step Act”); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). And consistent with § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if “(1) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors favor doing so, (2) there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for doing so, and . . . (3) doing so wouldn’t endanger any person or the community within the meaning of [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.13’s policy statement.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court need not consider these conditions “in any particular order.” Id. And because a district court can grant a com- passionate-release motion only if it finds that all three conditions are met, a district court may end its analysis and “skip assessment USCA11 Case: 25-12687 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-12687 Opinion of the Court 3 of another condition” once it finds that “at least one of the compas- sionate-release conditions [is] not satisfied.” Id. at 1238; see also United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347–48 (11th Cir. 2021). So a district court may assume that extraordinary and compelling rea- sons exist for releasing a prisoner and nevertheless deny his com- passionate-release motion because the § 3553(a) factors weigh against release. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–40. 1 Put differently, “a district court doesn’t procedurally err when it denies a request for compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) sentencing fac- tors . . . without first explicitly determining whether the defendant could present ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons.’” Id. at 1240. This Court’s precedent forecloses Code’s argument that the district court erred—or “improperly shifted the burden” of proof, Br. of Appellant at 10—by considering the § 3553(a) factors before addressing Code’s asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. Contrary to Code’s contention, the dis- trict court had discretion to start its analysis by evaluating whether the § 3553(a) sentencing factors supported releasing him. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237, 1240. And once the district court found that they did not, it could end its analysis. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38; see also Giron, 15 F.4th at 1347–48. Thus, Code’s arguments on appeal 1 The § 3553(a) factors include “the nature and circumstances” of the defend- ant’s offense, his “history and characteristics,” as well as the need for the de- fendant’s sentence to “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” “promote respect for the law,” “provide just punishment for the offense,” deter criminal con- duct, and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C). USCA11 Case: 25-12687 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2026 Page: 4 of 4 4 Opinion of the Court 25-12687 are meritless, and we affirm the district court’s denial of his com- passionate-release motion. AFFIRMED.