UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ANTONIO ZALDIVAR IGLESIAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-6161 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00215-HE-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Antonio Zaldivar Iglesias, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district 

court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

Background 

On June 6, 2014, Mr. Iglesias and another individual robbed an Oklahoma bank 

while armed. During the armed robbery, Mr. Iglesias discharged his firearm into the air 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may 

be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th 

Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 28, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 1
2 

and pointed it at the bank manager several times. 2 R.12–13. On August 28, 2014, Mr. 

Iglesias pled guilty to knowingly using and discharging a firearm during a crime of 

violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 1 R. 22–44, 47. The underlying crime 

of violence was armed bank robbery. Id. at 36. On January 21, 2015, the district court 

sentenced Mr. Iglesias to 153 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. 

1 R. 48–49. 

In November 2021, Mr. Iglesias moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Mr. Iglesias argued he was eligible for compassionate release in light of 

his age (74 years), medical condition, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Iglesias noted 

that he suffers from active depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, diabetes, 

hypothyroidism, high blood pressure, heart cardiopatia, high cholesterol, tachycardia, and 

prostate problems. 1 R. 65. He argued these conditions, especially his diabetes and heart 

problems, placed him, according to the CDC, in the high-risk category should he contract 

COVID-19.1

 

The district court determined that while his age and medical conditions were “a 

potential concern,” Mr. Iglesias failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons 

for compassionate release because his condition was controlled by various medications, 

he was able to care for himself in prison with limited restrictions, and he was fully 

1

 In his reply before the district court, Mr. Iglesias raised entirely new arguments. 

He argued, like he does now on appeal, that the district court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction over his offense and that his statute of conviction—18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)—is unconstitutionally vague in light of United States v. Davis, 

139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). 

Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 2
3 

vaccinated against COVID-19 thereby reducing the risk he faced. Moreover, the district 

court concluded that even if there was an extraordinary and compelling reason, 

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release inappropriate given the severity 

of the underlying offense and his age when committing it. Mr. Iglesias committed his 

crime at the age of 67, and the district court noted that his relatively advanced age is thus 

no indicator that he no longer posed a threat to the public. 

On appeal, Mr. Iglesias does not challenge the grounds upon which the district 

court denied his motion for compassionate release but rather reiterates the arguments he 

made in his reply (“Defendant’s Objections to Government’s Opposition”) before the 

district court. Liberally construed, he argues that Section 403 of the First Step Act 

repealed his statute of conviction. In turn, he argues this repeal voided the court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction, which renders his continued imprisonment unconstitutional. 

Moreover, he argues his continued imprisonment constitutes an ex post facto violation. 

Aplt. Br. at 2–4. Lastly, citing Davis, he argues his statute of conviction is void as it is 

unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2. He also suggests that the court should hear oral 

argument in his case by a competent public defender. 

Discussion 

We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate-release motion for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation 

omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect conclusion 

of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 

1265 (10th Cir. 2016). Given Mr. Iglesias proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his 

Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 3
4 

filings but “do not act as his advocate.” United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 864 n.1 

(10th Cir. 2019). 

We do not consider the arguments Mr. Iglesias raises in his opening brief because 

they were not properly presented to the district court, having been raised for the first time 

in his reply brief.2

 See United States v. Sanchez, 446 F. App’x 149, 150 (10th Cir. 2011) 

(unpublished). To the extent that Mr. Iglesias challenges the district court’s denial of 

compassionate release, we find no abuse of discretion. The district court provided a 

reasoned explanation as to why consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release 

inappropriate. We will not disturb a district court’s reasoned weighing of those factors. 

See United States v. Williams, 848 F. App’x 810, 813 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

2

 As recognized by the government, Mr. Iglesias’ jurisdictional arguments concerning 

the effect that Section 403 of the First Step Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Davis have on his statute of conviction — § 924(c) — are not colorable. See Aplee. Br. 

at 15–17. 

Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 4