Court Opinion

ID: 9382784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 19:00:37.194927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.667814
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6161     Document: 010110833982          Date Filed: 03/28/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                              March 28, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                                 No. 22-6161
  v.                                                   (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00215-HE-1)
                                                                (W.D. Okla.)
  ANTONIO ZALDIVAR IGLESIAS,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Antonio Zaldivar Iglesias, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district

 court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).

 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                        Background

        On June 6, 2014, Mr. Iglesias and another individual robbed an Oklahoma bank

 while armed. During the armed robbery, Mr. Iglesias discharged his firearm into the air

        *
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
 be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
 Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-6161     Document: 010110833982          Date Filed: 03/28/2023       Page: 2

 and pointed it at the bank manager several times. 2 R.12–13. On August 28, 2014, Mr.

 Iglesias pled guilty to knowingly using and discharging a firearm during a crime of

 violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 1 R. 22–44, 47. The underlying crime

 of violence was armed bank robbery. Id. at 36. On January 21, 2015, the district court

 sentenced Mr. Iglesias to 153 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.

 1 R. 48–49.

        In November 2021, Mr. Iglesias moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mr. Iglesias argued he was eligible for compassionate release in light of

 his age (74 years), medical condition, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Iglesias noted

 that he suffers from active depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, diabetes,

 hypothyroidism, high blood pressure, heart cardiopatia, high cholesterol, tachycardia, and

 prostate problems. 1 R. 65. He argued these conditions, especially his diabetes and heart

 problems, placed him, according to the CDC, in the high-risk category should he contract

 COVID-19.1

        The district court determined that while his age and medical conditions were “a

 potential concern,” Mr. Iglesias failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons

 for compassionate release because his condition was controlled by various medications,

 he was able to care for himself in prison with limited restrictions, and he was fully

        1
          In his reply before the district court, Mr. Iglesias raised entirely new arguments.
 He argued, like he does now on appeal, that the district court lacked subject matter
 jurisdiction over his offense and that his statute of conviction—18 U.S.C.
 § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)—is unconstitutionally vague in light of United States v. Davis,
 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).
                                               2
Appellate Case: 22-6161      Document: 010110833982          Date Filed: 03/28/2023      Page: 3

 vaccinated against COVID-19 thereby reducing the risk he faced. Moreover, the district

 court concluded that even if there was an extraordinary and compelling reason,

 consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release inappropriate given the severity

 of the underlying offense and his age when committing it. Mr. Iglesias committed his

 crime at the age of 67, and the district court noted that his relatively advanced age is thus

 no indicator that he no longer posed a threat to the public.

        On appeal, Mr. Iglesias does not challenge the grounds upon which the district

 court denied his motion for compassionate release but rather reiterates the arguments he

 made in his reply (“Defendant’s Objections to Government’s Opposition”) before the

 district court. Liberally construed, he argues that Section 403 of the First Step Act

 repealed his statute of conviction. In turn, he argues this repeal voided the court’s subject

 matter jurisdiction, which renders his continued imprisonment unconstitutional.

 Moreover, he argues his continued imprisonment constitutes an ex post facto violation.

 Aplt. Br. at 2–4. Lastly, citing Davis, he argues his statute of conviction is void as it is

 unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2. He also suggests that the court should hear oral

 argument in his case by a competent public defender.

                                          Discussion

        We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate-release motion for abuse of

 discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation

 omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect conclusion

 of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261,

 1265 (10th Cir. 2016). Given Mr. Iglesias proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his

                                                3
Appellate Case: 22-6161     Document: 010110833982          Date Filed: 03/28/2023      Page: 4

 filings but “do not act as his advocate.” United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 864 n.1

 (10th Cir. 2019).

        We do not consider the arguments Mr. Iglesias raises in his opening brief because

 they were not properly presented to the district court, having been raised for the first time

 in his reply brief.2 See United States v. Sanchez, 446 F. App’x 149, 150 (10th Cir. 2011)

 (unpublished). To the extent that Mr. Iglesias challenges the district court’s denial of

 compassionate release, we find no abuse of discretion. The district court provided a

 reasoned explanation as to why consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release

 inappropriate. We will not disturb a district court’s reasoned weighing of those factors.

 See United States v. Williams, 848 F. App’x 810, 813 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished).

        AFFIRMED.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                               Circuit Judge

 2
   As recognized by the government, Mr. Iglesias’ jurisdictional arguments concerning
 the effect that Section 403 of the First Step Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in
 Davis have on his statute of conviction — § 924(c) — are not colorable. See Aplee. Br.
 at 15–17.
                                               4