United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-40083

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Sergio Eduardo Sanchez-Chavez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-172-12

Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sergio Eduardo Sanchez-Chavez, federal prisoner # 22948-078 and 

proceeding pro se, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with intent to 

manufacture and distribute, controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. He was sentenced in 2016 to, inter alia, 262-months’ 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

October 27, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40083 Document: 00516524164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 22-40083

2

imprisonment and five-years’ supervised release. Sanchez challenges the 

denial of his motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), for 

compassionate release.

Sanchez contends his asthma, in combination with new COVID-19 

variants and the conditions at the prison, constitute the requisite 

extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying early release. (For the first 

time on appeal, Sanchez asserts he was denied medical attention and his 

inhaler when he was previously infected with COVID-19. Because this issue 

and underlying facts were not before the district court, our court does not 

address this new issue. United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432 n.1 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021) (quoting Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 

185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999) (“An appellate court may not consider 

new evidence furnished for the first time on appeal and may not consider 

facts which were not before the district court at the time of the challenged 

ruling.”)).)

Denial of a compassionate-release motion is reviewed for abuse of

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

court abuses its discretion when it “bases its decision on an error of law or a 

clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”. Id. (citation omitted). A

court may modify a defendant’s sentence, after considering the applicable 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, if “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warrant such a reduction”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

The court found Sanchez’ fear of reinfection was not an extraordinary 

and compelling reason for release because: his asthma was controlled; he had 

been vaccinated against COVID-19; reinfections of vaccinated individuals 

were rare; and, at the time of the order, Sanchez was housed at a facility with 

no active COVID-19 cases among inmates and only three cases among staff. 

This decision was not based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

Case: 22-40083 Document: 00516524164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 22-40083

3

assessment of the evidence. E.g., Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433–35 (noting 

defendant could “point to no case in which a court, on account of the 

pandemic, has granted compassionate release to an otherwise healthy 

defendant with two, well-controlled, chronic medical conditions and who had

completed less than half of his sentence”). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-40083 Document: 00516524164 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2022