United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40465

consolidated with

No. 21-40466

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Julieann Gutierrez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1002-9

USDC No. 2:13-CR-617-1

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Julieann Gutierrez, federal prisoner # 31776-379, appeals the denial of 

her motions for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). On appeal, she contends that the district court abused its 

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40465 Document: 00516586326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 21-40465

c/w No. 21-40466

2

discretion in denying her motions because (1) it treated the pertinent policy 

statement as binding; (2) it did not consider whether the combination of her 

health conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, her family circumstances, and 

her rehabilitation constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for a 

sentence reduction; and (3) it based its decision in part on the erroneous 

conclusion that her previous recovery from COVID-19 weighed against 

compassionate release, without acknowledging the cases she cited in which 

district courts granted compassionate release under such circumstances.

This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for 

compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 

2688 (2021). A district court abuses its discretion when it “bases its decision

on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United 

States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

The district court correctly quoted and relied on § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

when considering whether Gutierrez identified extraordinary or compelling 

reasons for a sentence reduction. It does not appear that the district court 

relied on § 1B1.13, p.s., or found it to be binding as the district court also 

quoted United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021), which 

held that the policy statement is not binding. Therefore, Gutierrez has not 

shown that the district court treated § 1B1.13, p.s., as binding. See id. at 393.

The district court implicitly considered all the factors that Gutierrez

argued weighed in favor of her compassionate release, including the COVID19 pandemic, her medical conditions, her family circumstances, and her 

rehabilitative efforts, but ultimately determined that her motion should be 

denied. The court was not required to expressly address each argument in 

ruling on her § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 

Case: 21-40465 Document: 00516586326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 21-40465

c/w No. 21-40466

3

(5th Cir. 2009). Gutierrez has not shown that the district court made “an 

error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” because it did 

not expressly state that it considered the combination of factors on which she 

relied. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

Because both Gutierrez and the Government presented contentions 

regarding the sentencing factors, the record reflects that the district court 

implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 

138 S. Ct. 1959, 1967-68 (2018). Gutierrez’s disagreement with how the 

district court balanced the § 3553(a) factorsis not a basis for determining that 

the district court abused its discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. 

Moreover, because the district court appropriately denied Gutierrez’s 

motion under § 3553(a), any other error the court may have made in 

considering her recovery from COVID-19 is not grounds for reversal. See id.; 

see also Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433-34.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-40465 Document: 00516586326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2022