Court Opinion

ID: 9384073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 18:00:29.477906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:50.278488
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11004         Document: 00516696427             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11004
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                March 31, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Alfredo Medina,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:09-CR-133-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alfredo Medina, federal prisoner # 39027-177, appeals the district
   court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18
   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He also moves to file a supplemental brief. 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: 22-11004      Document: 00516696427           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                     No. 22-11004

          Medina argues, without authority, that the district court erred in
   failing to allow the Government the opportunity to refute or concur with his
   arguments; his assertion lacks merit. Medina also argues that the district
   court abused its discretion in failing to consider the grounds that he raised in
   support of compassionate release. However, a district court is not required
   “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, the district court stated that it had considered the motion for
   compassionate release and the record and that it was not persuaded by
   Medina’s arguments; thus, the court indicated that it considered and
   rejected these arguments. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188
   (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020).
          He further asserts that the district court erred by heavily relying on
   the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement and its commentary and other criteria.
   The district court stated that the nonbinding Sentencing Guidelines’ policy
   statement and commentary could be used as a tool for review of a motion for
   compassionate release, and the court was entitled to do so. See United States
   v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021); cf. United States v. Shkambi,
   993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Noting the district court’s statement that many of the arguments
   raised by Medina regarding mitigation had been rejected on direct appeal,
   Medina argues that the district court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   factors relied on assessments of those factors at the time of sentencing and
   failed to take into consideration his post-sentencing conduct or changes in
   the law. Medina’s arguments amount to no more than a disagreement with
   the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is insufficient to show an
   abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

                                              2
Case: 22-11004   Document: 00516696427         Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                No. 22-11004

         Accordingly, Medina has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion,
   and the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. His motion to file a
   supplemental brief is GRANTED.

                                         3