Court Opinion

ID: 9387455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 00:00:31.961689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.567942
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-51001      Document: 00516714593         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/17/2023

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

                                                                         FILED
                                                                     April 17, 2023
                                  No. 20-51001
                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   George Luis Guzman,

                                                          Defendant—Appellant.

                 Appeal from the United States District Court for
                          the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:03-CR-96-1

   Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          George Luis Guzman appealed the district court’s November 30,
   2020 order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under Section 404 of
   the First Step Act of 2018. Guzman argued that the district court erred by
   failing to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for denying his motion.

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-51001      Document: 00516714593           Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/17/2023

                                     No. 20-51001

          Upon initial consideration of Guzman’s appeal, we remanded for the
   limited purpose of having the district court clarify its reasons for denying
   Guzman’s Section 404 motion. See United States v. Guzman, No. 20-51001,
   2022 WL 17538880 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) (unpub.) (per curiam). In doing
   so, we reasoned that similar references to nonexistent “applicable policy
   statements” had warranted remand in other First Step Act cases. Id. at *2
   (citing United States v. Perez, 27 F.4th 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 2022) and United
   States v. Stewart, 857 F. App’x 822, 823 (5th Cir. 2021) (unpub.) (per
   curiam)). The same was true for First Step Act cases in which, as here, the
   defendant sought a reduction of his term of imprisonment and his supervised
   release term, but the district court failed to acknowledge the dual nature of
   the request in denying the motion. See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466,
   479 (5th Cir. 2020); Stewart, 857 F. App’x at 823.
          Guzman’s motion seeks a reduction of his sentence of imprisonment
   from 262 months to 234 months and reduction of his 8-year term of
   supervised release to a 6-year term. In the March 4, 2023 order issued upon
   remand, the district court emphasized that Guzman’s current sentence of
   262 months of imprisonment is within the lower statutory and advisory
   guidelines range (210–262 months) that would apply if he had been sentenced
   under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Further warranting denial of any
   reduction of Guzman’s term of imprisonment and/or his term of supervised
   release, the district court explained, are the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a)(1) and (2), and Guzman’s behavioral problems while he has been
   incarcerated, which include drug possession and an admitted “drug
   problem,” in addition to conduct reflecting a “pattern of violence” and a
   “high risk of recidivism.”1

          1
            The district court’s March 4, 2023 order states, on page 5: “Defendant’s
   behavioral problems encompass more than drugs. Indeed, several times Defendant was

                                           2
Case: 20-51001        Document: 00516714593             Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/17/2023

                                         No. 20-51001

           We review the district court’s denial of a motion asserted under
   Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 for an abuse of discretion. United
   States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard,
   the defendant must show the court made an error of law or based its decision
   on a ‘clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” United States v. Abdul-
   Ali, 19 F.4th 835, 837 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d
   933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011)).
          With regard to the reasons for a district court’s ruling on a First Step
   Act motion, the Supreme Court had instructed: “[T]he First Step Act [does
   not] require a district court to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’
   arguments[;] [a]ll that is required is for a district court to demonstrate that it
   has considered the arguments before it.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S.
   Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). The district court’s March 4, 2023 order meets this
   standard. Considering it and the record before us, we find no abuse of
   discretion. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Guzman’s motion for
   reduction of sentence is AFFIRMED.

   caught with dangerous weapons like an ice pick, assaulting fellow inmates, and threatening
   prison staff.”

                                               3