# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50343 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Rene Gandara**

**- Granillo,** 
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:92

- CR

- 132

- 2

Before **Barksdale, Higginson,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Rene Gandara

- Granillo, federal prisoner # 62260

- 080 and proceeding pro se , a ppeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

. He maintains the court : applied the incorrect legal standard in considering his motion ; and erred in assessing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors , by rel ying on dated facts surrounding his

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

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 9, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50343 Document: 00516573380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022No. 22

- 50343

2 offense and ignor ing his age, rehabilitative efforts, and clean prison disciplinary record. Additionally, he claims a double

- jeopardy violation and claims the court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing or allowing him to file a sentencing memorandum. ( G andara fail s to brief his contention that his medical conditions warrant his release; therefore, he has abandoned that claim. E.g. , Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” (citation omitted)). )

To the extent he appears to challenge the denial of his earlier 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) reduction

- of

- sentence motion, our court previously affirmed that denial on the same grounds he raises in this appeal ; therefore, the law of the case bars our revisiting that decision. United States v. Teel , 691 F.3d 578, 582 (5th Cir. 2012) ( on subsequent appeal, our court “ abstains from reexamining an issue of fact or la w that has already been decided on appeal”) ; see United States v. Gandara

- Granillo , No. 21

- 50251, 2022 WL 964203 (5th Cir. 30 Mar. 2022)

. His double

- jeopardy claim fails because the district court did not impose additional punishment; rather, it declined to modify an existing

sentence. E.g. , United States v. Anderson , 987 F.2d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 1993) (double jeopardy “applies where multiple convictio ns and sentence s are based on a single act or transaction”); see also United States v. Roberts , No. 97

- 41185, 1998 WL 413888, at *1 (5th Cir. 17 June 1998) (unpublished) (on appeal of denial of § 3582(c)(2) motion, double jeopardy “argument [was] not cogni zable

. . . because [defendant] was convicted and sentence d only for a single offense”). Because Gandara did not request a hearing , or leave to file a sentencing memorandum, his procedural claim is reviewed under the well

Case: 22-50343 Document: 00516573380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2022No. 22

- 50343

3 known plain

- error standard, that n eed not be repeated

. E.g. , United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Section 3582(c) does not mandate, and Gandara fails to show a factual dispute which may have warranted , an evidentiary hearing or other supplemental fact finding . 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also Dickens v. Lewis , 750 F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir. 1984) ( discretionary hearing s generally not required if facts not in dispute) ; **F ED** 

**. R.**  **C RIM** 

**. P.**  43(b)(4) (defendant’s presence not required for reductions of sentence under § 3582(c))

. Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate the requisite clear

- or

- obvious error. E.g. , Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Reaching his substantive claims, o ur court review s denial of a compassionate

- release motion for abuse of discretion. E.g. , United States

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

Gandara’s contention the court erroneously treated Guideline § 1B1.13 (factors and guidance for assessing motions by the Bureau of Prisons for reduction of terms of imprisonment) as binding is directly contradicted by the record. His remaining assertions amount to a disagreement with how the court weighed the § 3553(a) sent encing factors, which is not a sufficient basis for reversal. E.g. , id . at 694 . Rather, the record s hows t he court assessed the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and provided “clearly

- articulated reasons for denying [ Gandara’s ] motion”. Id. at 693

– 94

. O ur c ourt gives deference

to that assessment

. Id.

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50343 Document: 00516573380 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2022