United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50983

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Raymundo Jose Pina, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-181-3 

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Raymundo Jose Pina is serving a 120-month sentence for 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms 

or more of cocaine. The district court imposed the sentence under a plea 

agreement.

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

February 14, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50983 Document: 00516645243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
No. 21-50983

2

In August 2020, Pina moved for compassionate release pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He cited the threat COVID-19 posed to him 

given his preexisting medical conditions as the “extraordinary and 

compelling reason[ ]” that might justify his early release. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Government filed a response in which it addressed 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court subsequently denied 

Pina’s motion “on its merits” in November 2020, stating that it had 

considered “the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”

Pina filed a second motion for compassionate release in 

September 2021. He reasserted many of the same arguments made in his first 

motion but noted he had suffered a heart attack in December 2020. The 

district court denied the motion “for the same reasons stated” in its 

November 2020 order. Pina timely appealed, asserting the district court’s 

order lacked sufficient detail to permit appellate review.

A district court abuses its discretion if it does not provide adequate 

reasons for denying a motion for compassionate release. United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The amount of explanation 

required, however, depends “upon the circumstances of the particular 

case.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). This 

court looks to the entire record when determining whether a district court 

sufficiently explained its order. United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348, 351 

(5th Cir. 2022).

In denying Pina’s September 2021 motion, the district court referred 

to its November 2020 order. That order adopted the government’s 

arguments as to the Section 3553(a) factors and denied Pina’s August 2020 

motion on that basis. The record here permits the inference that the district 

court denied Pina’s September 2021 motion on those same grounds. That is 

Case: 21-50983 Document: 00516645243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
No. 21-50983

3

sufficient.1 See, e.g., Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1968 (affirming district 

court’s use of check-the-box form order); see also Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–

94.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

1 Handlon does not compel a contrary conclusion. Unlike the movant in that case, 

Pina has not presented changed factual circumstances that make it impossible “to discern 

from the earlier order what the district court thought about the relevant facts.” Handlon, 

53 F.4th at 353. Indeed, records show that Pina has obtained adequate medical care in 

prison. It should also be noted that the district court judge who decided Pina’s two

compassionate release motions served as a magistrate judge in Pina’s underlying criminal 

conviction proceedings. He is therefore intimately familiar with this case. See United States 

v. Pina, 7:08-cr-00181-3 (W.D. Tex.).

Case: 21-50983 Document: 00516645243 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2023