Court Opinion

ID: 9961295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 16:00:57.419815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:32.572572
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5096     Document: 010111034265   Date Filed: 04/18/2024   Page: 1
                                                                FILED
                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                           FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        April 18, 2024
                       _________________________________
                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                         Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                    No. 23-5096
                                              (D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00051-CVE-1)
  MANUEL BONILLA,                                       (N.D. Okla.)

           Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                           ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                       _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Manuel Bonilla, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district

 court’s dismissal of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3582(c)(1)(A), seeking compassionate release. Exercising jurisdiction under

 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       *
         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 judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the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: 23-5096   Document: 010111034265    Date Filed: 04/18/2024   Page: 2

                                 BACKGROUND

       In 2010, Bonilla pleaded guilty to three counts associated with his

 leading a drug-trafficking organization in Oklahoma. Though Bonilla’s

 Guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment, the district court varied

 downward and sentenced him to 293 months’ imprisonment. Bonilla appealed

 his conviction and sentence, but we dismissed his appeal, enforcing the

 appellate waiver in his plea agreement. United States v. Bonilla, 394 F. App’x

 500, 501–02 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

       In July 2023, Bonilla filed a motion for compassionate release under

 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In his motion, Bonilla claimed health issues as an

 extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence. 1 Responding to

 Bonilla’s motion, the government argued that no extraordinary and compelling

 reasons existed and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against

 compassionate release. The district court ruled that Bonilla’s health issues were

 not extraordinary and compelling, because “he is not in jeopardy of serious

       1
         In 2015, Bonilla filed a motion for sentence reduction because the
 United States Sentencing Commission had retroactively reduced his base-
 offense level. The district court granted his motion and reduced his sentence
 from 293 to 292 months’ imprisonment. In his compassionate-release motion,
 Bonilla inappropriately challenges the district court’s 2015 ruling. He adds an
 argument that the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal-history
 category. He also claims that he was illegally arrested—a challenge to the
 validity of his conviction, which is improper for a compassionate-release
 motion. See United States v. Wesley, 60 F.4th 1277, 1289 (10th Cir. 2023) (“We
 hold that an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion may not be based on claims
 specifically governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”). The district court correctly
 rejected these arguments.
                                         2
Appellate Case: 23-5096   Document: 010111034265      Date Filed: 04/18/2024    Page: 3

 complications resulting from continued imprisonment.” R. at 573. So the

 district court denied Bonilla’s compassionate-release motion without

 addressing the § 3553(a) factors. After the district court entered the order

 denying the motion, Bonilla filed a reply to the government’s response. In his

 reply, Bonilla challenged the government’s assertions and repeated arguments

 from his motion. Bonilla then appealed.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a district court’s order denying a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for

 an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th

 Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect

 conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id. (quoting United

 States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013)).

                                   DISCUSSION

       Federal courts are generally forbidden from modifying a term of

 imprisonment after it has been imposed. Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S.

 522, 526 (2011). But this “rule of finality is subject to a few narrow

 exceptions,” including when a defendant moves for a sentence reduction under

 § 3582(c)(1) for compassionate release. United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d

 821, 830 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Freeman, 564 U.S. at 526).

       Before granting a compassionate-release motion, district courts must

 address three steps. Id. at 831. First, the court “must find whether extraordinary

 and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.” Id. (cleaned up).

                                          3
Appellate Case: 23-5096   Document: 010111034265      Date Filed: 04/18/2024   Page: 4

 Second, the court “must find whether such reduction is consistent with

 applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id.

 (cleaned up). And third, the court must “consider any applicable § 3553(a)

 factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by

 steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part under the particular

 circumstances of the case.” Id. (cleaned up). District courts may deny a

 compassionate-release motion at any of the three steps without addressing the

 others. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 942–43 (10th Cir. 2021).

       On appeal, Bonilla argues that the district court erred for several reasons,

 which we group into three categories: (1) the district court violated his right to

 reply to the government’s response; (2) the district court failed to consider the

 entire record, including Bonilla’s exhibits; and (3) the government prejudiced

 Bonilla by mischaracterizing his postconviction conduct. 2 We address these

 arguments in turn.

       2
         Bonilla raises six issues in his opening brief. He faults the district court
 (1) for denying his motion before he had time to reply to the government’s
 response; (2) for denying his motion without considering his reply; (3) for
 failing to consider “all evidence, testimony, declarations, and exhibits
 presented in [Bonilla’s] motion”; (4) for ruling that his illegal-arrest argument
 did not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason; (5) for failing to
 consider all “filings relative to the pleadings in his § 3582 motion”; and (6) for
 allowing the government to mischaracterize Bonilla’s postconviction conduct.
 Op. Br. at 3.
        Bonilla’s fourth argument—whether his illegal arrest amounted to an
 extraordinary and compelling reason—challenges the validity of his conviction.
 Such challenges are not allowed in a compassionate-release motion. See
 Wesley, 60 F.4th at 1289. Thus, the district court properly rejected it.
                                          4
Appellate Case: 23-5096   Document: 010111034265       Date Filed: 04/18/2024   Page: 5

       First, Bonilla contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of

 Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(B)—the rule governing counterclaims and

 crossclaims—by denying his motion before receiving his reply. That rule gives

 parties 21 days to serve an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(B). But Rule 12

 does not govern motions in criminal cases. Further, Bonilla raised no argument

 in his reply that he had not already raised in his motion, so he has not shown

 prejudice. See, e.g., Walter v. Morton, 33 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 1994)

 (“We find neither prejudice to the Defendants nor an abuse of the district

 court’s discretion in ruling before the filing of a reply brief.”); United States v.

 Hammons, No. 22-6044, 2022 WL 3681254, at *2 (10th Cir. 2022)

 (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s denial of compassionate release

 before the defendant had filed a reply because the defendant failed to identify a

 material argument in the reply). Thus, the district court acted within its

 discretion by denying Bonilla’s motion before he had replied to the

 government’s response.

       Second, Bonilla argues that the district court failed to consider all the

 evidence in the record, including the exhibits that he had attached to his

 motion. But Bonilla’s argument is undermined by the district court’s order,

 which references the exhibits that Bonilla claims the court missed. For

 example, the court notes that Bonilla’s “request for bilateral knee replacements

 has been denied, as he did not meet clinical practice guidelines.” R. at 572.

 This shows that the court considered Bonilla’s medical records that he had

                                          5
Appellate Case: 23-5096   Document: 010111034265      Date Filed: 04/18/2024   Page: 6

 attached to his motion. Likewise, the court noted that its ruling was “based on

 review of [Bonilla’s] medical history; his current low healthcare level; and the

 medical care provided, to include prescription medication to reduce symptoms

 and issuance of devices to reduce pain and aid in his mobility.” R. at 573.

 Because the court fully considered Bonilla’s motion, it did not abuse its

 discretion.

       Third, Bonilla faults the government for mischaracterizing his

 postconviction conduct in its response. 3 Even if Bonilla is correct, he has not

 shown reversible error. The district court denied his motion because he had not

 proven an extraordinary and compelling reason—step one of the three-step

 compassionate-release framework. Maumau, 993 F.3d at 831. By denying

 Bonilla’s motion at step one, the court noted that it need not address the other

 steps. And Bonilla’s postconviction conduct becomes relevant at step three—

 weighing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Lente, 759 F.3d 1149, 1168

 (10th Cir. 2014) (ruling that courts may consider “post-conviction conduct”

 under the § 3553(a) factors). Thus, Bonilla was not prejudiced by the

 government’s characterization of his postconviction conduct. 4

       3
         In the government’s response, the government stated that, while
 incarcerated, Bonilla had participated in fights, introduced drugs/alcohol into
 his facility, refused to work for a year, and assaulted another inmate.
       4
         Bonilla seeks leave to supplement the record on appeal with two
 exhibits. The first concerns a corruption investigation of a police officer
 allegedly involved in Bonilla’s case. Because this exhibit supports only his
                                                               (footnote continued)
                                          6
Appellate Case: 23-5096   Document: 010111034265      Date Filed: 04/18/2024   Page: 7

                                  CONCLUSION

       For all these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order, deny Bonilla’s

 motion to supplement the record, and dismiss this appeal.

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Gregory A. Phillips
                                           Circuit Judge

 arguments challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence, we deny his
 motion to supplement the record.
        The second exhibit concerns allegations of official misconduct at
 Bonilla’s prison. Because Bonilla failed to present this evidence to the district
 court, we deny his motion to supplement this exhibit. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)
 (noting that the record consists of papers and exhibits filed in the district court,
 the transcript of proceedings, and a copy of the docket).
                                          7