Court Opinion

ID: 9908526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-09 01:00:35.271322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:13.864226
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50216         Document: 00516995615             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50216
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               December 8, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Miguel Camarena,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:07-CR-158-4
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Miguel Camarena, federal prisoner # 37223-177, appeals the district
   court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18
   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he raises three arguments: (1) the
   district court erred when it did not find his purported sentencing errors to be
   extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduced sentence; (2) the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50216      Document: 00516995615           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/08/2023

                                     No. 23-50216

   district court erred in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did
   not support a sentence reduction; and (3) the district court did not provide
   adequate reasons in its order denying his motion, thus violating his due
   process rights. Camarena has filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time
   reply brief, and we GRANT the motion. Accordingly, we have considered
   Camarena’s reply brief.
          We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948
   F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). As we have previously held, when a district
   court denies a motion for compassionate release, it must give ‘“specific
   factual reasons’ for its decision.” United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348, 351
   (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693). Therefore, a district
   court must explain its analysis of the § 3553 factors. United States v. Stanford,
   79 F.4th 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2023).
          Here, the district court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not
   warrant relief; specifically, the court cited the nature and circumstances of
   Camarena’s offense of conviction and the need for the sentence to reflect the
   seriousness of his offense, promote respect for the law, provide just
   punishment, adequately deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
   his further crimes. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)–(C). We hold that this analysis
   is sufficient for due process purposes.
          Although Camarena disagrees with the district court’s weighing of the
   § 3553(a) factors, his disagreement is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district court’s assessment of the
   § 3553(a) factors supports the denial of Camarena’s motion, we do not reach
   his argument that the court erred in finding that he did not establish his
   extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See id. at
   693–94.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2