United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11004 

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Alfredo Medina, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-133-1 

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alfredo Medina, federal prisoner # 39027-177, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He also moves to file a supplemental brief. 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). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11004 Document: 00516696427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-11004

2

Medina argues, without authority, that the district court erred in 

failing to allow the Government the opportunity to refute or concur with his 

arguments; his assertion lacks merit. Medina also argues that the district 

court abused its discretion in failing to consider the grounds that he raised in 

support of compassionate release. However, a district court is not required 

“to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is 

required is for a district court to demonstrate that it has considered the 

arguments before it.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 

(2022). Here, the district court stated that it had considered the motion for 

compassionate release and the record and that it was not persuaded by 

Medina’s arguments; thus, the court indicated that it considered and 

rejected these arguments. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188 

(5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020). 

He further asserts that the district court erred by heavily relying on 

the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement and its commentary and other criteria. 

The district court stated that the nonbinding Sentencing Guidelines’ policy 

statement and commentary could be used as a tool for review of a motion for 

compassionate release, and the court was entitled to do so. See United States 

v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021); cf. United States v. Shkambi, 

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

Noting the district court’s statement that many of the arguments 

raised by Medina regarding mitigation had been rejected on direct appeal, 

Medina argues that the district court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors relied on assessments of those factors at the time of sentencing and 

failed to take into consideration his post-sentencing conduct or changes in 

the law. Medina’s arguments amount to no more than a disagreement with 

the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is insufficient to show an 

abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

Case: 22-11004 Document: 00516696427 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-11004

3

Accordingly, Medina has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion, 

and the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. His motion to file a 

supplemental brief is GRANTED.

Case: 22-11004 Document: 00516696427 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2023