United States v. Daniel Ochoa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-13730
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13730 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2026 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13730 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

DANIEL OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20674-JLK-1 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Daniel Ochoa, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release USCA11 Case: 24-13730 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2026 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13730

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 1 After review, 2 we affirm the district court. “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 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A district court may grant compassionate release if (1) an extraordinary and com- pelling reason exists; (2) a sentencing reduction would be con- sistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which requires, among other things, that the court determine the defendant is not a danger to the com- munity; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of compassion- ate release. United States v. Tinker, 14 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. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1348-50 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court denied Ochoa’s motion for compassion- ate release pursuant to all three prongs: (1) Ochoa failed to present

1 Ochoa has also filed a “Motion For Judicial Notice,” asking us to take judicial

notice of a document that he says proves his 2006 conviction used to designate him as a career offender was for attempted armed robbery, not armed rob- bery. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT because the true nature of his prior conviction has no bearing on our analysis in this appeal. 2 We review de novo “whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). “After eligibility is established, we review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. USCA11 Case: 24-13730 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2026 Page: 3 of 5

24-13730 Opinion of the Court 3

an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence; (2) Ochoa failed to demonstrate he is not a danger to the commu- nity; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief. In his brief, Ochoa lists under the heading “Statement Of Is- sues Presented For Review” five issues questioning whether the district court erred when denying his motion for compassionate re- lease in (1) not “complying with the procedures set forth in Concep- cion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022)”; (2) classifying his “alleged prior conviction” as an armed robbery; (3) ordering the U.S. Pro- bation Office to respond to his compassionate release motion with- out first deciding on “the nature and qualification of the allege[d] prior conviction for career offender purposes”; (4) not allowing him an opportunity to reply to the Probation Office’s response; and (5) “resorting” to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to deny him com- passionate release. Ochoa does not then make any argument as to those listed issues, but instead quotes extensively from his sentenc- ing hearing transcript, interspersing his comments throughout, be- fore then asking us to take judicial notice of United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), and asserting that he no longer is a career of- fender because Florida attempted armed robbery is not a “crime of violence” and that he is actually innocent. When a district court judgment is “based on multiple, inde- pendent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. All- state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If an ap- pellant “fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on USCA11 Case: 24-13730 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2026 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 24-13730

which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id. Passing references in the “statement of the case” or “summary of the argument sections of a brief” are not sufficient to properly raise a claim. Id. at 681. Passing references in the argument section of the opening brief, mere back- ground references buried within arguments, and conclusory asser- tions are also not adequate to raise a claim. Id. at 682. Ochoa has abandoned any argument regarding the district court’s determination of his dangerousness to the community or the § 3553(a) factors, as he has merely listed issues and has not made any argument nor properly challenged those district court findings on appeal. Because the district court made its decision to deny Ochoa’s motion for compassionate release on multiple, independ- ent bases, including the § 3553(a) factors and the determination of his dangerousness under § 1B1.13’s policy statement, Ochoa would need to show that all independent bases were wrongly decided to overturn the decision. See Giron, 15 F.4th at 1348-50; Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237-38; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680-82. Thus, even when Ochoa’s filing is liberally construed, his abandonment of those ar- guments is fatal to his challenge to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. See In re Ellingsworth Residential Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 125 F.4th 1365, 1377 (11th Cir. 2025) (stating we liberally con- strue pro se filings, but we do not have the license to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action); United States v. Thomas, 32 F.4th 1073, 1077 (11th Cir. 2022) (“We may affirm for any reason supported by the record.”); Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. USCA11 Case: 24-13730 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2026 Page: 5 of 5

24-13730 Opinion of the Court 5

Ochoa has abandoned any claimed error in the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release based on his dangerousness or the § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.