Court Opinion

ID: 9560977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:00:34.88294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:44.978717
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50939         Document: 00516864869             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/21/2023

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

                                       No. 22-50939
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                      August 21, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Hernaldo Perea Beltran,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 7:00-CR-46-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Hernaldo Perea Beltran, federal prisoner #
   51158-180, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under
   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review the denial of a motion for
   compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948
   F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50939      Document: 00516864869           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50939

          Perea Beltran filed a motion for compassionate release under 18
   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), asserting that the COVID-19 virus is dangerous to
   him and puts his life at risk, and that he needs to care for his elderly mother.
   Perea Beltran contends that the district court’s “brief statement of reasons
   for denying his motion for compassionate release is unclear and does not
   resolve all the issues in controversy presented by the parties or provide
   enough information from which it could be determined whether it acted
   within its discretion.” Perea Beltran also contends that the district court
   abused its discretion by failing to address whether the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
   policy statement is binding.
          District courts are not required to provide “a detailed explanation of
   why they have denied a motion,” but “sometimes review is possible ... only
   with a statement of reasons for the denial.” United States v. Perez, 27 F.4th
   1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The U.S.
   Supreme Court recently instructed that “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). Otherwise, we must guess why a motion was denied,
   which we decline to do. See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 783 F. App’x 438,
   439–40 (5th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (per curiam) (remanding for district
   court to explain reasons for denial); United States v. Riley, 820 F. App’x 295,
   296 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (per curiam) (remanding for explanation).
          The government maintained in a footnote its own belief that the
   § 1B1.13 policy statement was authoritative and binding. However, the
   government noted that its theory is foreclosed by this court’s holdings in
   United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392–93 (5th Cir. 2021) and United
   States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021). The government
   asserts that although § 1B1.13 is not dispositive and nonbinding, § 1B1.13

                                               2
Case: 22-50939        Document: 00516864869         Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50939

   informs the analysis of the extraordinary and compelling reasons for
   compassionate release.
          Here, in its one-paragraph order denying compassionate release, the
   district court stated that it “consider[ed] the applicable factors provided in
   18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued by the
   Sentencing Commission.” The district court’s order does not provide the
   factual basis for denial and leaves unanswered questions regarding the factual
   basis for denial and the policy statements it deemed applicable. In similar
   circumstances, we have remanded such cases for the district court to explain
   its reasons for denial. See United States v. McMaryion, No. 21-50450, 2023
   WL 4118015, at *2 (5th Cir. June 22, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam);
   United States v. Guzman, No. 20-51001, 2022 WL 17538880, at *1 (5th Cir.
   Dec. 8, 2022) (unpublished) (per curiam). We follow the same course here.
   “As we typically do in such situations, we will retain appellate jurisdiction.”
   Guzman, 2022 WL 17538880 at *3.
          Perea Beltran also asserts that the case should be remanded to the
   district court with instructions to hold the appeal in abeyance until the United
   States Sentencing Commission issues new guideline amendments on
   November 1, 2023. However, because he raised this argument for the first
   time in his reply brief, we will not consider it. 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).
          REMANDED.

                                              3