Court Opinion

ID: 9370830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 19:00:34.794241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.044902
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50983     Document: 00516645243          Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/14/2023

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                     February 14, 2023
                                   No. 21-50983                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Raymundo Jose Pina,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:08-CR-181-3

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Raymundo Jose Pina is serving a 120-month sentence for
   conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms
   or more of cocaine. The district court imposed the sentence under a plea
   agreement.

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50983        Document: 00516645243        Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                    No. 21-50983

          In August 2020, Pina moved for compassionate release pursuant to
   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He cited the threat COVID-19 posed to him
   given his preexisting medical conditions as the “extraordinary and
   compelling reason[ ]” that might justify his early release.           18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Government filed a response in which it addressed
   the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court subsequently denied
   Pina’s motion “on its merits” in November 2020, stating that it had
   considered “the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the
   applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”
          Pina filed a second motion for compassionate release in
   September 2021. He reasserted many of the same arguments made in his first
   motion but noted he had suffered a heart attack in December 2020. The
   district court denied the motion “for the same reasons stated” in its
   November 2020 order. Pina timely appealed, asserting the district court’s
   order lacked sufficient detail to permit appellate review.
          A district court abuses its discretion if it does not provide adequate
   reasons for denying a motion for compassionate release. United States v.
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The amount of explanation
   required, however, depends “upon the circumstances of the particular
   case.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). This
   court looks to the entire record when determining whether a district court
   sufficiently explained its order. United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348, 351
   (5th Cir. 2022).
          In denying Pina’s September 2021 motion, the district court referred
   to its November 2020 order.         That order adopted the government’s
   arguments as to the Section 3553(a) factors and denied Pina’s August 2020
   motion on that basis. The record here permits the inference that the district
   court denied Pina’s September 2021 motion on those same grounds. That is

                                          2
Case: 21-50983         Document: 00516645243              Page: 3       Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                          No. 21-50983

   sufficient. 1 See, e.g., Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1968 (affirming district
   court’s use of check-the-box form order); see also Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–
   94.
           For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

           1
             Handlon does not compel a contrary conclusion. Unlike the movant in that case,
   Pina has not presented changed factual circumstances that make it impossible “to discern
   from the earlier order what the district court thought about the relevant facts.” Handlon,
   53 F.4th at 353. Indeed, records show that Pina has obtained adequate medical care in
   prison. It should also be noted that the district court judge who decided Pina’s two
   compassionate release motions served as a magistrate judge in Pina’s underlying criminal
   conviction proceedings. He is therefore intimately familiar with this case. See United States
   v. Pina, 7:08-cr-00181-3 (W.D. Tex.).

                                                3