United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10611

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Perales, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-74-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Perales, federal prisoner # 43787-177, appeals the denial of 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. He argues 

that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to show extraordinary 

and compelling reasons warranting relief and failed to sufficiently explain its 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

June 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 21-10611

2

reasons for concluding that release was unwarranted under the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors.

We review the district court’s denial for an abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). We may 

consider the entire record, going back to the original sentencing, in deciding 

whether the district court adequately justified its sentencing decision. See

Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965–67 (2018). Here, the 

district court’s explanation of the factual reasons supporting its denial of 

Perales’ motion is neither lengthy nor detailed. Indeed, the district court’s 

order occupies only a single page. Nevertheless, the “specific factual 

reasons” for the district court’s decision are reasonably inferable when the 

district court’s order is considered together with the record in this matter. 

The 2021 order denying Perales’ motion begins by stating that the 

motion—which focuses on risks associated with the Covid-19 virus—was 

considered and that Perales had failed to show extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warranting relief. The district court’s order alternatively denies the 

motion based on the court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, noting 

that courts granting compassionate release “‘have done so for defendants 

who have already served the lion’s share of their sentences. . . .’” 

Importantly, the district court judge who decided Perales’ motion for 

compassionate release also determined his original sentence, in 2018, after 

considering Perales’ Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The PSR

reveals that Perales’ offense was more serious than a standard felon-inpossession offense. See PSR, ¶¶ 10–18 (indicating that, while on supervised 

release, Perales accepted a number of firearms in purported payment of a 

debt; brokered with others to sell some of the firearms on his behalf; and 

asked his girlfriend to claim responsibility for the weapons (upon learning 

they were stolen property) to avoid apprehension). The PSR also detailed 

Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 21-10611

3

Perales’ extensive criminal history. Id. at ¶¶ 37–47 (noting multiple 

convictions for robbery and burglary, as well as a previous felon-in-possession 

conviction, yielding a criminal history category of VI). Furthermore, at the 

original sentencing hearing, the district judge rejected Perales’ request for a 

sentence at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range,1 explaining that a 

top-of-the-guidelines sentence of 96 months was imposed in order to 

adequately address the sentencing objectives of punishment and deterrence.2

Given the foregoing, although the district court’s order does not detail

the factual reasons for denying Perales’ motion for compassionate release, 

the rationale for the court’s decision is adequately inferable when the order

is considered together with the record from Perales’ original sentencing 

record, particularly including the PSR and the sentencing hearing transcript.

In short, it is evident that the district court was not persuaded that Perales’ 

concerns regarding the risks associated with the COVID-19 virus sufficiently 

outweighed the § 3553 factors on which his sentence of 96 months was based. 

See § 3553(a)(1) & (a)(2); see also Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1965-67; 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693; see also United States v. Suttle, No. 21-50576, 

2022 WL 1421164 (5th Cir. 2022)(unpub.)(order denying motion for 

compassionate release was vacated and remanded because order lacked

“specific factual reasons” for decision, presiding judge had not decided 

original sentence, and rationale for decision was not otherwise inferable from 

record); United States v. Sauseda, No. 21-50210, 2022 WL 989371, *2 (5th 

Cir. 2022)(unpub.) (where the same judge imposed the original sentence, the 

1 The request was premised in part on Perales’ purported need to receive cancer 

treatment. 

2 The term of imprisonment also was ordered to run consecutively to any 

revocation sentence imposed in Case No. 1:17-CR-088-01-C then-pending in the Northern 

District of Texas, Abilene Division.

Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 21-10611

4

weight given to § 3553(a) factors in deciding subsequent motion for 

compassionate release may be inferable from original sentencing decision) .

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED on that 

basis, and we do not consider Perales’ arguments challenging the district 

court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 

(5th Cir. 2021). Perales’ assertion that the district court committed 

procedural error by failing to rule on his motion for the appointment of 

counsel is patently incorrect as the court in fact denied that motion by 

separate order on the same date it denied compassionate release. Lastly, 

Perales’ motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States 

v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008).

Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/06/2022