United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50072

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Heinrich Wiebe-Neudorf, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-77-1

Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Heinrich Wiebe-Neudorf, federal prisoner # 26999-480, appeals the 

denial of his third motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s decision to deny a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50072 Document: 00516534603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
No. 22-50072

2

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 

948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Wiebe-Neudorf argues that the district court violated his First 

Amendment right to be heard when it did not allow the Government to 

respond to his current § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, which would have given 

him the opportunity to reply; that extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

relief existed; and that the district court’s decision improperly denied relief 

based on the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), and 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a), which he contends are inapplicable to his motion under 

United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021).

Wiebe-Neudorf has not provided any authority indicating that he 

would be entitled to relief on his First Amendment claim in the context of a 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion. To the extent he argues that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion without a response from the 

Government, his argument is unavailing in light of the plain language of the 

statute, which makes no reference to a Government response. See

§ 3582(c)(1)(A); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2021).

Although Wiebe-Neudorf also challenges the district court’s reliance on the 

§ 3553(a) factors, consideration of those factors is required under the statute. 

See § 3582(c)(1)(A); Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393. Additionally, although 

Wiebe-Neudorf challenges the district court’s reliance on § 1B1.13 and 

§ 3142(g), the record indicates that the district court’s decision was 

independently supported by its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. See United 

States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n. 8 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. 

Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021).

Accordingly, we need not consider Wiebe-Neudorf’s contention that 

extraordinary and compelling reasons justified relief. See Ward, 11 F.4th at

360-62.

Case: 22-50072 Document: 00516534603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
No. 22-50072

3

To the extent that Wiebe-Neudorf challenges the sufficiency of the 

district court’s reasons, the argument was raised for the first time in his reply 

brief, and we generally do not consider issues raised for the first time in a 

reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360-61 (5th Cir. 

2010). However, even if we were to consider this argument, it lacks merit

because the reasons for the district court’s denial may be reasonably inferred

from the district court’s order and the record. See Chavez-Meza v. United 

States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966 (2018). 

In light of the foregoing, the district court’s denial of WiebeNeudorf’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion did not constitute an abuse of

discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50072 Document: 00516534603 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2022