United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50800

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Eugenio Hernandez Villa, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CR-13-8 

______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Eugenio Hernandez Villa, federal prisoner # 01208-180, appeals the 

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

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Hernandez Villa, who was sentenced to a 

mandatory term of life imprisonment on his drug conspiracy conviction, 

contends that the district court erred by failing to consider that, due to nonretroactive changes in the law brought about by the First Step Act, he would 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50800 Document: 00516611562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2023
No. 22-50800

2

not have been subject to a mandatory life sentence under the current 

sentencing scheme. He argues that the district court should have determined 

that this non-retroactive change in the law is an extraordinary and compelling 

reason warranting a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

Hernandez Villa also argues that the district court erred by determining that 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 constitutes an applicable policy statement for 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions.

The above arguments are unavailing because the district court did not 

base its decision on § 1B1.13 or on a finding that there were no extraordinary 

and compelling circumstances but instead permissibly denied Hernandez 

Villa’s request for a sentence reduction based solely upon its determination 

that the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not warrant relief. See

United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2000). In this 

regard, the district court took note of Hernandez Villa’s role as a leader or 

organizer of his criminal offenses, his illegal presence in the United States 

and his parole status when he committed the offenses, his criminal history, 

and his disciplinary history in the Bureau of Prisons. We routinely affirm the 

denial of a compassionate release motion “where the district court’s 

weighing of the [§]3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment.” 

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

Hernandez Villa’s contention that the district court erred by failing to 

consider his post-sentencing rehabilitation in evaluating the § 3553(a) factors 

is also unavailing. As the Supreme Court has determined, “the First Step 

Act [does not] require a district court 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, at the outset of its 

dispositive order, the district court stated that it had conducted a complete 

review of the motion on the merits. Because Hernandez Villa’s 

Case: 22-50800 Document: 00516611562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2023
No. 22-50800

3

rehabilitation-based argument was before the district court, we will infer that 

the district court considered it and decided the motion for a sentence 

reduction in light of Hernandez Villa’s contentions. See United States 

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

The arguments raised by Hernandez-Villa do not establish that the 

district court based its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence when it determined that the § 3553(a) factors 

weighed against a compassionate release sentence reduction. See Chambliss, 

948 F.3d at 693. His disagreement with how the district court balanced the 

§ 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion and “is not 

a sufficient ground for reversal.” Id. at 694. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

Case: 22-50800 Document: 00516611562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2023