Court Opinion

ID: 9786678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:36.754608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:13.784019
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40172        Document: 00516878914             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                            FILED
                                                                                      August 30, 2023
                                      No. 23-40172
                                    Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Guillermo Cardenas-Sanchez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:17-CR-908-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Guillermo Cardenas-Sanchez, federal prisoner # 31237-179, appeals
   the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A). Cardenas-Sanchez argues that the district court failed to
   provide sufficient reasons for denying a reduction to his 200-month sentence,
   which he received for his conviction for importing into the United States 500

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40172        Document: 00516878914        Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                    No. 23-40172

   grams or more of methamphetamine. He further argues that a sentence
   reduction was warranted given the amount of time he has served in prison,
   the hardships he has suffered while incarcerated due to COVID-19, post-
   sentencing rehabilitation, and the lack of danger he poses to the community.
          The record reflects that the district court considered Cardenas-
   Sanchez’s arguments when concluding that compassionate release was not
   warranted based on extraordinary and compelling circumstances.              See
   Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022).           Cardenas-
   Sanchez’s arguments amount to a generalized fear of contracting COVID-19,
   which “doesn’t automatically entitle a prisoner to release.” United States v.
   Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 2021). Although Cardenas-Sanchez
   asserts that he has spent many years in prison, approximately half of his 200-
   month sentence remains unserved. See id. at 434. Further, the district court
   was not required to grant Cardenas-Sanchez’s motion on account of his
   rehabilitation efforts. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404-05; U.S.S.G.
   § 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.3). We do not consider Cardenas-Sanchez’s
   newly raised argument that the district failed to honor his plea agreement,
   and he abandons his equal protection and time-credit arguments by failing to
   raise the claims on appeal before this court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
   Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
   (5th Cir. 1993).
          Cardenas-Sanchez has failed to show that the district court abused its
   discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release on the basis that
   extraordinary and compelling reasons did not warrant relief. See United
   States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). As such, the district
   court was not required to conduct an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis prior to
   denying Cardenas-Sanchez’s motion. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Thompson, 984
   F.3d at 433-35.      Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          2