Court Opinion

ID: 9759065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:02:28.546849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:14:31.525873
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51102        Document: 00516874972             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51102
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 28, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Treviño Morales,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:12-CR-210-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Treviño Morales, federal prisoner # 27585-064, appeals the
   denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Treviño Morales argues the district court
   erred in finding that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling
   reasons for granting relief, which circumstances he asserts include various
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51102      Document: 00516874972          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/28/2023

                                    No. 22-51102

   medical conditions, his prison’s inability to address his medical conditions,
   and his rehabilitation. He additionally contends that the district court erred
   in applying and weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Finally, Treviño
   Morales argues that the district court failed to adequately address his
   arguments and provided insufficient reasons for denying his motion.
          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).
   Based on the district court’s statement that it had considered Treviño
   Morales’s motion, we may infer that the district court considered and
   rejected the arguments that Treviño Morales raised in his motion. See
   Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); United States v.
   Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2023). The district court’s order
   demonstrates that it adequately considered Treviño Morales’s arguments
   and concluded that consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors did not weigh
   in favor of relief. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2405; United States v. Evans,
   587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court “did not need to say
   more.” Escajeda, 58 F.4th at 188. Treviño Morales’s arguments regarding
   the Section 3553(a) factors amount to a disagreement with the court’s
   balancing of those factors. Tis disagreement does not warrant reversal. See
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
          We need not consider Treviño Morales’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
   Section 3553(a) factors. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th
   Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         2