# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40203 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Olga Lidia Torres**

**- Soreano,** 
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 766

- 1

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
Defendant

- Appellant Olga Lidia Torres

- Soreano challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

. 1 Her motion sought relief based on the COVID

- 19

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.

1 Because the government stated that it is “not participat[ing]” in this case, we
ass ume arguendo that Torres

- Soreano’s appeal is timely, regardless of the timing of her United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 25, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40203 Document: 00516179226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2022No. 21

- 40203

2 pandemic and her underlying medical conditions

. T he district court denied the motion, finding that Torres

- Soreano did not demonstrate an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release and that, even if she had, t he 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing fac tors weighed against granting early release.

We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691 , 693 (5th Cir. 2020)

. “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

T he district court gave sufficient reasons for denying Torres

Soreano’s motion based on the § 3553(a) factors

. See id. at 693

– 94

. T he district court’s analysis of her medical conditions, and whether they constituted “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warranting relief, is therefore irrelevant to this appeal

. See, e.g. , United States v. Guerrero , 857 F. App’x 844, 844 (5th Ci r. 2021) (unpublished) (“[D] enial [of a compassionate release motion] may be affirmed on any basis supported by the record, such as the court ’ s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. ”).

Torres

- Soreano has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying the requested relief

. See Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693

– 94

. T he district court’s decision is **AFFIRMED**

.

motion to reconsider the district court’s decision. See United States v. Martinez , 496 F.3d 387, 388

– 89 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Gomez

- Vasquez , 690 F. App’x 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“ Although

. . . untimely motions for reconsideration [do] not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief , . . . the time limit for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional and may be waived [.]” (citations omitted)). Case: 21-40203 Document: 00516179226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2022