Court Opinion

ID: 9392620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 18:00:37.124227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.140981
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50796         Document: 00516739513             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-50796
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                      May 5, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Carlos Zuniga Hernandes,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:06-CR-411-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Carlos Zuniga Hernandes, federal prisoner #82559-180, appeals the
   denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release.
   We will not consider his contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that
   his substantial assistance to Mexican authorities supports his request. See
   United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50796      Document: 00516739513           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                     No. 22-50796

          Renewing claims raised in the district court, Zuniga Hernandes posits
   that a reduction is in order because the Covid-19 pandemic has increased the
   severity of his sentence, that a reduction is needed to correct a sentencing
   disparity, and that his rehabilitative efforts support his request for a reduc-
   tion. He asserts that these factors should be considered in tandem.
          Zuniga Hernandes’s contention that the district court erred by failing
   to consider his claims as to sentencing disparity and rehabilitative efforts
   fails; those arguments were before the district court, and we conclude that
   the district court considered them. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667,
   673 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that Zuniga Hernandes asserts that the
   district court erred by failing to address his notion regarding the effect of the
   pandemic, we do not consider that theory, as it is raised for the first time in
   his reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360–61 (5th Cir.
   2010); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
          As for the district court’s analysis under the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) fac-
   tors, Zuniga Hernandez contends that the court placed too much weight on
   his pre-sentencing conduct, while failing to give enough weight to his post-
   sentencing behavior, principally his rehabilitative efforts and other positive
   developments during his incarceration. These averments amount to nothing
   more than a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a)
   factors, which does not warrant reversal of the denial of compassionate
   release. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Zuniga Hernandez fails to show an abuse of discretion as to the denial
   based on the § 3353(a) factors. See id. at 693. In view of the foregoing, we do
   not reach his theories pertaining to the district court’s determination that he
   failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduction.
   See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022);
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. AFFIRMED.

                                              2