Court Opinion

ID: 9391709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 00:00:56.614239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.950848
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40248         Document: 00516734839             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/02/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                                                              FILED
                                       No. 22-40248
                                                                           May 2, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Enrique E. Quintana,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:11-CR-25-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Enrique E. Quintana, federal prisoner # 15321-035, appeals the denial
   of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 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).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40248       Document: 00516734839           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                     No. 22-40248

          Quintana argues that the district court should have treated his reply
   to the Government’s response to his motion for compassionate release as a
   motion for reconsideration. However, the reply did not ask the district court
   to reconsider a question decided in the case in order to effect an alteration of
   the rights adjudicated, and thus he has not demonstrated any error in the
   district court’s failure to treat it as such. United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d
   1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992).
          Quintana     also   challenges    the     district   court’s   independent
   determination that his sentence was sufficient under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   factors. He concedes that his offense was serious, but he contends that the
   § 3553(a) factors weigh in his favor in light of his acceptance of responsibility
   for his actions prior to sentencing, his post-sentence rehabilitation, and the
   disparity between his sentence and the sentences of similar defendants.
   However, his arguments amount to no more than a disagreement with the
   district court’s balancing of the relevant factors, which is insufficient to show
   an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district
   court did not abuse its discretion in independently weighing the § 3553(a)
   factors, we need not consider Quintana’s additional arguments that there are
   extraordinary and compelling reasons for his compassionate release due to
   his risk of contracting COVID-19 and his ailing aunt’s need for his care, that
   the district court erred in applying the nonbinding policy statement of
   U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and in determining that he failed to meet the policy
   statement’s criteria, and that the length of his imprisonment and the
   COVID-19 lockdown conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. See United
   States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).
          AFFIRMED.

                                               2