Court Opinion

ID: 9363596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 19:00:33.31267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:32.768963
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50800         Document: 00516611562             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50800
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 16, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Eugenio Hernandez Villa,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:99-CR-13-8
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Eugenio Hernandez Villa, federal prisoner # 01208-180, appeals the
   district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant
   to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Hernandez Villa, who was sentenced to a
   mandatory term of life imprisonment on his drug conspiracy conviction,
   contends that the district court erred by failing to consider that, due to non-
   retroactive changes in the law brought about by the First Step Act, he would
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50800      Document: 00516611562          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/16/2023

                                    No. 22-50800

   not have been subject to a mandatory life sentence under the current
   sentencing scheme. He argues that the district court should have determined
   that this non-retroactive change in the law is an extraordinary and compelling
   reason warranting a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
   Hernandez Villa also argues that the district court erred by determining that
   U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 constitutes an applicable policy statement for
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions.
          The above arguments are unavailing because the district court did not
   base its decision on § 1B1.13 or on a finding that there were no extraordinary
   and compelling circumstances but instead permissibly denied Hernandez
   Villa’s request for a sentence reduction based solely upon its determination
   that the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not warrant relief. See
   United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2000). In this
   regard, the district court took note of Hernandez Villa’s role as a leader or
   organizer of his criminal offenses, his illegal presence in the United States
   and his parole status when he committed the offenses, his criminal history,
   and his disciplinary history in the Bureau of Prisons. We routinely affirm the
   denial of a compassionate release motion “where the district court’s
   weighing of the [§]3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment.”
   United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Hernandez Villa’s contention that the district court erred by failing to
   consider his post-sentencing rehabilitation in evaluating the § 3553(a) factors
   is also unavailing. As the Supreme Court has determined, “the First Step
   Act [does not] require a district court to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the
   parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is required is for a district court to
   demonstrate that it has considered the arguments before it.” Concepcion
   v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). Here, at the outset of its
   dispositive order, the district court stated that it had conducted a complete
   review of the motion on the merits.             Because Hernandez Villa’s

                                          2
Case: 22-50800      Document: 00516611562           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/16/2023

                                     No. 22-50800

   rehabilitation-based argument was before the district court, we will infer that
   the district court considered it and decided the motion for a sentence
   reduction in light of Hernandez Villa’s contentions. See United States
   v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020).
          The arguments raised by Hernandez-Villa do not establish that the
   district court based its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
   assessment of the evidence when it determined that the § 3553(a) factors
   weighed against a compassionate release sentence reduction. See Chambliss,
   948 F.3d at 693. His disagreement with how the district court balanced the
   § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion and “is not
   a sufficient ground for reversal.” Id. at 694.
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3