Court Opinion

ID: 9957626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 18:00:55.385366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:31.751585
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-11186            Document: 33-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/04/2024

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                    No. 23-11186                                   April 4, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________
                                                                                        Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Jesse Huerra,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:16-CR-12-6
                   ______________________________

Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Jesse Huerra, federal prisoner # 54510-177, appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for compassionate release brought under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). In its order, the district court stated that it had reviewed
Huerra’s arguments and denied the motion after finding that he had failed to
demonstrate that extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranted

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-11186       Document: 33-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/04/2024

                                 No. 23-11186

relief and after considering the applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Huerra contends that the district court failed to adequately
consider or discuss his extraordinary and compelling reasons for
compassionate release or the applicability of the § 3553(a) factors.
       We review the denial of Huerra’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
2020). A district court may modify a sentence, after considering the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i). Although
the court must provide specific reasons, Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693, the
amount of explanation needed depends “upon the circumstances of the
particular case.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).
“In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate review that the
judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that he or she has
considered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the § 3553(a)
factors.” Id.
       In United States v. Gallegos, No. 21-50814, 2022 WL 2752601, at *1
(5th Cir. 2022) (unpublished), though “the district court’s explanation was
brief,” a panel of our court rejected a defendant’s argument “regarding the
sufficiency of the” district court’s “reasons for denying” a § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion because (1) the district court explicitly considered the briefing before
it; (2) the district court expressly stated that it considered the § 3553(a)
factors; and (3) the same district judge who denied the motion for
compassionate release originally sentenced the defendant. All three
circumstances are present in this case. Accordingly, even though the district
court’s order denying Huerra’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion was “brief,”
“[t]he rationale for the” district court’s “decision is adequately
discernable” from the record. See id. The court was particularly concerned
with the need to provide just punishment and afford adequate deterrence,

                                      2
 Case: 23-11186          Document: 33-1         Page: 3       Date Filed: 04/04/2024

                                      No. 23-11186

both of which are § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). To
the extent Huerra disagrees with the district court’s balancing of the §
3553(a) factors, mere disagreement does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 694.1
        For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s decision is
AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
        1
          We need not consider Huerra’s contention that the district court erred in finding
that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in its alternative holding that relief was not
warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th
Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.

                                            3