Eleventh Circuit Undoes a Stacked § 924(c) Reduction After Rutherford

A sentence cut granted before Rutherford v. United States can still be reversed if the government appealed it. On October 27, 2026, in a published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a 2024 compassionate release reduction based on the First Step Act's change to "stacked" § 924(c) sentences. It ordered the district court to reinstate the original 1997 sentence (United States v. Rizo, No. 24-11349).

What happened

Abel Rizo was convicted in 1997 in the Southern District of Florida of offenses tied to a conspiracy to rob drug dealers. He received 468 months (39 years). That total included two § 924(c) firearm counts: 5 years on the first and a consecutive 20 years on the second, which was the stacked penalty for a second § 924(c) conviction at the time.

The First Step Act of 2018 changed 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) so the higher penalty applies only after a prior § 924(c) conviction has become final. Congress did not make that change retroactive.

In 2024, Mr. Rizo moved for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He relied on the "unusually long sentence" reason the Sentencing Commission added in 2023, USSG §1B1.13(b)(6). Over the government's objection, the district court cut the second § 924(c) term from 20 years to 5. His new total was 288 months, and the Bureau of Prisons' website showed his release on December 6, 2024.

The government appealed. The Eleventh Circuit put the appeal on hold while the Supreme Court decided Rutherford, then heard argument on September 30, 2026.

What the court decided

The government could appeal. Mr. Rizo argued the court had no jurisdiction over the government's appeal. The court disagreed. The order reducing his sentence was final, and the government raised a claim that the reduced sentence was imposed "in violation of law" under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(1). The court said that was enough whether its jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or on § 3742(b), so it did not decide which.

Rutherford controls. In Rutherford v. United States, 608 U.S. 454 (2026), the Supreme Court held that a sentencing change Congress did not make retroactive cannot be an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for a reduction. Applying that rule, the Eleventh Circuit held that the gap between Mr. Rizo's 20-year term and the 5 years he would face today is not, "as a matter of law," an extraordinary and compelling reason. The district court erred in granting the motion.

The court reversed and directed the district court to vacate the amended sentence entered April 2, 2024, and to reinstate the original sentence entered August 25, 1997.

The opinion notes that Mr. Rizo's motion also asked for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on guideline Amendments 782 and 599. The district court did not rule on that request, and it was not part of the appeal.

What it means for you and your family

• A grant is not always the end. If the government appealed a reduction that rested on a non-retroactive change in the law, that appeal can still succeed under Rutherford. Our post on Rutherford explains the Supreme Court's ruling.
• Other reasons still count. Rutherford closed the door on non-retroactive law changes. It did not touch the other reasons in USSG §1B1.13, such as serious medical conditions, age-related decline or a family caregiving crisis.
• Look at every route. A request for a reduction based on a retroactive guideline amendment goes under § 3582(c)(2), a separate path from compassionate release.

If your loved one's reduction is on appeal, or a new motion is being planned, our process guide walks through each step.