UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

HERIBERTO GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-8053 

(D.C. No. 2:03-CR-00061-SWS-1) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Heriberto Garcia-Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's 

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of his motion for 

compassionate release from federal prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 13, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 1
2 

amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 

5194, 5239. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.1

I. BACKGROUND 

A. First Step Act 

The First Step Act allows federal prisoners to move for compassionate release 

in district court after exhausting the Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”) administrative 

remedies. See United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 830-31 (10th Cir. 2021). The 

court may grant the motion only when it finds that 

(1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant release; 

(2) release is “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission”; and 

(3) release is warranted after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. 

Id. at 831; see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In general, “district courts may deny 

compassionate-release motions when any of the three prerequisites listed in 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking.” Maumau, 993 F.3d at 831 n.4 (quotations omitted); see 

also United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir. 2021). This appeal 

turns on the first prerequisite—extraordinary and compelling reasons. 

 

1

 Because Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, 

but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 

2013). 

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 2
3 

B. Procedural History 

Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez was convicted in 2004 of possession with intent to 

distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. ROA at 29. He was sentenced 

under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851 to life imprisonment because he had two 

prior felony drug convictions. Id. at 30. We upheld his conviction and sentence on 

appeal. See United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 127 F. App’x 440, 452 (10th Cir. 

2005). His attempts to obtain post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 failed. 

On October 19, 2021, having exhausted his administrative remedies with the 

BOP, Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez moved for compassionate release under the First Step 

Act. The district court rejected each of his four arguments and found no 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons [to] warrant release.” See ROA at 195. 

First, he argued his life sentence is disproportionately longer than it would be 

today under the First Step Act. The district court rejected this ground for 

release, holding that under Tenth Circuit precedent, see United States v. 

McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1048 (10th Cir. 2021), the lengthy sentence alone is 

insufficient to justify a sentence reduction. Id. at 188-91. 

Second, he urged that he has a strong record of rehabilitation. Upon review of 

Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez’s prison record, the court concluded his rehabilitation 

was not so exceptional as to justify release. Id. at 191. 

Third, he said he is needed to care for his ailing mother. The court found that 

he provided no evidence to support this claim. Id. at 192. 

Fourth, he posited his exposure to COVID-19. The court rejected this reason 

because he is fully vaccinated. Id. at 192-93.2

The court thus denied the motion for compassionate release. ROA at 181-95. 

2

 The district court also considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and found 

they supported denial of the motion. See ROA at 193-94. 

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 3
4 

Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez moved for reconsideration. The district court stated that 

he “reiterate[d] his previous arguments,” id. at 212, addressed them again anyway, 

and denied the motion on July 28, 2022, id. at 211-19. In his notice of appeal, Mr. 

Garcia-Rodriguez said he wished to challenge the July 28 order. Id. at 220. 

II. DISCUSSION 

“We review the denial of First Step Act relief for an abuse of discretion, the 

same as other post-trial motions. Likewise, we review the district court's denial of a 

motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Warren, 

22 F.4th 917, 927 (10th Cir. 2022) (quotations and citations omitted). 

On appeal, Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez does not challenge the district court’s 

treatment of his rehabilitation argument. He addresses the life sentence, makes a 

COVID-19 point to support his argument about caregiving for his mother, and 

proposes immediate deportation as an alternative remedy. 

A. Life Sentence 

Mr. Garcia-Rodriquez argues three points about his life sentence. 

First, he notes that Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory when he was 

sentenced but now they are advisory. Aplt. Br. at 4. This argument is a variation on 

his contention that his sentence would be different today than when he was sentenced 

in 2004. It does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that more is needed for 

compassionate release and that Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez had failed to present 

“individualized circumstances that would warrant sentence reduction.” ROA at 188. 

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 4
5 

Also, the argument is misplaced because his life sentence was based on 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851 and not on the Guidelines. ROA at 29. 

Second, he states the Government agrees that he would not be subject to a 

mandatory life sentence if he were sentenced today. Aplt. Br. at 4. Relatedly, he 

asserts that the Government’s calculated sentencing range for resentencing today 

would be 262 to 327 months. Id. at 5. This argument fails for the same reason as the 

first one. 

Third, he states that the Government “points out that” his two prior convictions 

underlying his life sentence “are not conclusive.” Aplt. Br. at 4. This argument is 

not clearly presented or adequately developed. Also, this court upheld the sentence 

on direct appeal, including his challenge “that there was insufficient evidence to 

support the judge’s finding of the two prior drug felonies beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” 127 F. App’x at 450. We held there was “ample evidence.” Id.3

B. COVID 19 and Caregiving 

Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez contends that “Covid-19 created hardships obstructed 

Petitioner Garcia-Rodriguez’s opportunity to explain and substantiate why Petitioner 

Garcia-Rodriguez is the only caregiver for his ailing and elderly mother.” Aplt. Br. 

at 5. This argument seems to apply more to his caregiving argument than to his 

3

 As he did in district court, Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez cites cases from outside the 

Tenth Circuit, mostly from district court, Aplt. Br. at 7-8, that the district court 

rejected as failing to remedy his failure to show the combination of a lengthy 

sentence and individual unique circumstances to constitute “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See ROA at 212. 

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 5
6 

COVID-19 exposure argument, but even if it applies to both, he did not present it to 

the district court or argue plain error here, so it is waived. See Richison v. Ernest 

Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128-31 (10th Cir. 2011).4

C. Deportation 

Finally, Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez asks us to “[c]onsider immediate deportation” 

as a “plausible alternative,” explaining that his sentence calls for deportation upon 

release. Aplt. Br. at 5. Although the release plan he submitted to the district court 

called for him to live in Uruapan, Michoacan, Mexico, see ROA at 40, he did not 

explicitly present “immediate deportation” to the district court. However, in his motion 

for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying his compassionate release 

motion, he cited his sentence’s post-release deportation order to support his claim 

that he does not present a threat to public safety. Specifically, he argued that “Mr. 

Garcia will most likely be deported upon release, which is itself a punishment. Any 

lingering public safety concerns are mooted by the fact of Mr. Garcia’s impending 

deportation.” ROA at 207-08 (citations omitted). Reading his district court filing 

liberally as proposing immediate deportation, we see no abuse of discretion in the 

district court’s determination that Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez failed to show 

“extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release. 

4

 Though Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez is pro se, he is subject to the same procedural 

rules governing other litigants. See United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300, 1307-08 

(10th Cir. 2018) (stating that a litigant’s pro se status did not excuse compliance with the 

general procedural rule). 

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 6
7 

III. CONCLUSION 

We affirm the district court’s judgment. Because Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez has 

failed to show the “existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts 

in support of the issues raised,” Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(quotations omitted), we deny his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

5

Entered for the Court 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

5

 Judge Rossman would grant Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez’s motion to proceed on 

appeal in forma pauperis. 

Appellate Case: 22-8053 Document: 010110781783 Date Filed: 12/13/2022 Page: 7