Court Opinion

ID: 9367869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 01:00:27.131899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.136458
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50574        Document: 00516631637             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-50574                             February 1, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Dalia Valencia,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:15-CR-228-10
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Dalia Valencia, federal prisoner # 59005-380, appeals the denial of her
   motion to reconsider a previous denial in 2020 of a motion for compassionate
   release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which was, in
   actuality, a new motion for compassionate release. We review a district

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50574     Document: 00516631637           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                    No. 22-50574

   court’s decision to deny a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for abuse of discretion.
   United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Valencia argues that new medical conditions constitute extraordinary
   and compelling reasons for relief. She also contends that the district court
   erred in determining, in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
   that her release from prison would not accomplish the goal of affording
   adequate deterrence. She concedes that the charges against here were
   serious, but she argues that her lack of criminal history before her
   incarceration, her age, her rehabilitation while in prison, and her service of
   more than six years of her sentence indicate that recidivism is unlikely. She
   also contends this court should compel the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to
   deduct newly earned time credit from her sentence due to the First Step Act.
   In her reply brief, she additionally contends for the first time that any
   potential public safety concerns would be alleviated due to her likely
   deportation upon her release. However, we generally do not consider
   arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v.
   Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Valencia’s arguments challenging the district court’s assessment of
   the § 3553(a) factors amount to no more than a disagreement with the district
   court’s balancing of these 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 by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a)
   factors, we need not consider Valencia’s arguments regarding the existence
   of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See United States v. Jackson,
   27 F.4th 1088, 1093 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th
   354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Additionally, although Valencia seeks to require
   the BOP to apply sentence credits, a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, rather than a
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, is the appropriate mechanism for seeking such

                                         2
Case: 22-50574     Document: 00516631637           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                    No. 22-50574

   relief. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir.
   2002).
            AFFIRMED.

                                         3