Court Opinion

ID: 9894723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 18:00:30.445901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:26.981141
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50412       Document: 00516953708             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023

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

                                                                                    FILED
                                                                             November 2, 2023
                                     No. 23-50412
                                   Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Gerardo Mora Ornelas,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:21-CR-213-1

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam *:
          Gerardo Mora Ornelas appeals the denial of his motion for immediate
   release under the First Step Act. This Act permits courts to reduce a

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-50412        Document: 00516953708              Page: 2       Date Filed: 11/02/2023

                                            23-50412

   defendant’s term of imprisonment when “extraordinary and compelling
   reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Ornelas
   argues that the district court failed to give adequate reasons for denying his
   motion.     Because the court’s explanation was adequate, the order is
   AFFIRMED.
           Ornelas had nine prior criminal convictions for various offenses from
   1986, when he was 20 years old, to the present. These included driving while
   intoxicated, cruelty to animals, terroristic threat, and conspiracy to distribute
   cocaine. Id. The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) recommended a
   guideline imprisonment range of from 235 months to 283 months, based upon
   a total offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of II. The district
   court, in a Statement of Reasons, explicitly adopted the PSR “without
   change.” The court sentenced the defendant to 255 months, which is within
   the range recommended.
           About fifteen months later, Ornelas moved for immediate release,
   arguing that he was at risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 because
   of his underlying medical conditions: hypertension, tricuspid valve disorder,
   cardiomyopathy, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux
   disorder, compromised immune system, diabetes, and obesity. The district
   court denied release. The court explained its decision by stating that it
   “considered . . . the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
   the applicable policy statements.” 1

           _____________________
           1
             The court is required to consider these factors in deciding a motion for immediate
   release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The factors “include (1) the nature and circumstances
   of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the
   sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentenced and
   sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense or defendant; (5) any
   pertinent policy statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
   defendants with similar records; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of

                                                    2
Case: 23-50412         Document: 00516953708              Page: 3      Date Filed: 11/02/2023

                                            23-50412

          This court has previously upheld similar orders. See, e.g., United
   States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2023) (denying release where
   the district court’s order stated that the court “consider[ed] the applicable
   factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements
   issued by the Sentencing Commission”). In addition, the district court had
   previously explained its reasons for the length of the term of imprisonment
   at sentencing. This case therefore differs from United States v. McMaryion,
   No. 21-50450, 2023 WL 4118015, at *2 (5th Cir. June 22, 2023) (remanding
   for   further      explanation because the district court’s                  order    was
   “perfunctor[y]”). 2 In that case the sentencing judge was not the same judge
   who decided the motion for immediate release. Id. at *1. But here,
   Judge Counts, who decided the motion for immediate release, also issued the
   original sentence. His order denying release must therefore be read in the
   context of the rest of the record. See United States v. Stanford, 79 F.4th 461,
   463-64 (5th Cir. 2023). Judge Counts gave an indication of his thinking at the
   time of the original sentence by adopting the PSR and choosing a sentence
   within the recommended range. The district court “considered the
   applicable factors and denied relief. It did not need to say more.” Escajeda,
   58 F.4th at 188.
          The order denying the defendant’s motion for immediate release is
   AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
   the offense.” United States v. Chambliss, 945 F.3d 691, 693 n.3 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing
   18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
          2
              This unpublished opinion is cited only to show the consistency of our precedent.

                                                    3