Court Opinion

ID: 9906760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 01:01:27.480669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:18.093807
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10673         Document: 00516988540             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/04/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10673
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               December 4, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Baltazar Alvarado,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:09-CR-286-7
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Baltazar Alvarado, federal prisoner # 39557-177, moves for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.                  The district court
   determined that neither Alvarado’s generalized fear of contracting COVID-
   19 while incarcerated nor his concerns about his elderly parents presented an

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10673      Document: 00516988540          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/04/2023

                                    No. 23-10673

   extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduced sentence and that even if
   they did, the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not counsel granting
   relief. See generally § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d
   388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021).
          By moving to proceed IFP, Alvarado challenges the district court’s
   certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
   117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We will grant IFP status if Alvarado’s
   appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. See Howard v. King, 707
   F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Alternatively, we may deny the IFP motion
   and dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous and “the merits are so intertwined
   with the certification decision as to constitute the same issue.” Baugh, 117
   F.3d at 202 & n.24 (citing 5th Cir. R. 42.2).
          Alvarado posits four arguments for finding reversible error by the
   district court. We conclude that all four arguments are frivolous. His first
   two arguments assert error in the district court’s initial finding that no
   extraordinary and compelling reasons justified reducing his sentence.
   Whether the district court so erred is irrelevant, however, because it
   ultimately concluded that even if Alvarado had presented extraordinary and
   compelling reasons, he nonetheless had not shown that the applicable
   § 3553(a) factors justified a sentence reduction. As such, the court’s decision
   to deny relief did not hinge on whether Alvarado had shown extraordinary
   and compelling circumstances.
          Alvarado’s third argument is that the district court improperly relied
   on hearsay evidence at his original sentencing hearing in determining that the
   § 3553(a) factors counseled against compassionate release. In substance,
   however, Alvarado attempts to relitigate the facts underlying his original
   conviction and sentence, which is beyond the limited scope of a § 3582(c)
   proceeding. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011).

                                         2
Case: 23-10673     Document: 00516988540           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/04/2023

                                    No. 23-10673

          Finally, Alvarado contends that the district court erred by denying his
   motion for compassionate release without giving the Government an
   opportunity to file a response, which he posits as a violation of due process.
   He cites no authority, nor are we aware of any, requiring a response from the
   Government before a compassionate release motion may be denied or
   forbidding such motions to be considered ex parte.
          Alvarado’s appeal does not involve any legal points arguable on their
   merits and is frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the
   motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as
   frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24.

                                         3