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

No. 22

- 10406 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Miguel Munoz**

**- Huerta,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 30

Before **W i**  **ener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Following a plea of guilty, the district court sentenced defendant

appellant Miguel Munoz

- Huerta to 235 months confinement and four years of supervised release. Munoz

- Huerta moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

– the compassionate release statute

. Concluding that § 3582(c)(1)(A) was not the proper procedural mechanism for the relief

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir. R. 47.5.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 9, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10406 Document: 00516573622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022No. 22

- 10406

2 sought , the district court construed the motion as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and afforded Munoz

- Huerta the opportunity to “either (1) withdraw the document that the Court recharacterized as a Section 2255 motion or (2) file an amended motion on the Court’s Section 2255 form that included all grounds for relief he believed were available to him.” Munoz

Huerta withdrew the motion. He then filed another motion to challenge his sentence, again under § 3582 (c)(1)(A) . The district court dismissed the motion without prejudice and, for the second time, advised Munoz

- Huerta that he could properly challenge the validity of his sentence under § 2255. Mu noz

- Huerta appeals that dismissal. In his appellate briefing, Munoz

- Huerta expressly states that he is not moving the Court to modify his sentence under § 2255 , but under §
3582 (c)(1)(A)

. He contends that § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a proper vehicle for sentence reduction in light of the First Step Act of 2018 , which amended §
3582

. In United States v. Shkambi , we explained:

Before the FSA [ i.e. , the F irst S tep A ct] amendment, the relevant provision of § 3582 read: “[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce [a prisoner ’ s] term of imprisonment ....” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2012). The FSA amended that text to read: [T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion o f the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant ’ s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defen dant ’ s facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce [a prisoner ’ s] term of imprisonment .... Case: 22-10406 Document: 00516573622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2022No. 22

- 10406

3 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2018) (italics indicating amendment).
993 F.3d 388, 391

- 92 (5th Cir. 2021) . Accordingly, we observed that the First Step Act’s amendment allowed for a defendant to move the court to reduce his or her term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(1)(A)

. Id. at 392.

That is what Munoz

- Huerta seeks to do here. And he should have the opportunity to have the merits of his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion heard b y the district court and the relevant compassionate

- release standards applied. Therefore, w e **REVERSE** and **REMAND** for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Case: 22-10406 Document: 00516573622 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2022