United States Court of Appeals

for 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, appeals 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 relying 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: 12/09/2022
No. 22-50343

2

offense and ignoring 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. (Gandara fails 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 law 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 convictions and sentences 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 cognizable . . . because [defendant] was convicted and sentenced 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 wellCase: 22-50343 Document: 00516573380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2022
No. 22-50343

3

known plain-error standard, that need 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 hearings generally not required 

if facts not in dispute); FED. R. CRIM. 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, our court reviews 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) sentencing factors, which is not a sufficient 

basis for reversal. E.g., id. at 694. Rather, the record showsthe court assessed

the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and provided “clearly-articulated reasons 

for denying [Gandara’s] motion”. Id. at 693–94. Our court gives deference 

to that assessment. Id.

AFFIRMED.

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