Court Opinion

ID: 9809091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:00:39.771072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:51.362037
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7427      Doc: 12         Filed: 08/30/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7427

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        GUILLERMO SALAZAR-VELASQUEZ,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00904-RMG-1)

        Submitted: August 18, 2023                                        Decided: August 30, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Guillermo Salazar-Velasquez, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7427      Doc: 12          Filed: 08/30/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Guillermo Salazar-Velasquez appeals from the district court’s order denying his

        motion for compassionate release. On appeal, he asserts that the district court did not

        adequately consider and address the reasons he presented for release. We affirm.

               We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse

        of discretion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021). “A district court

        abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially

        recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or

        legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 167

        (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               District courts may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling

        reasons warrant such a reduction” upon a motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons

        (BOP) or upon a motion of the defendant after he has exhausted his administrative remedies

        with the BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). If a court finds that extraordinary and

        compelling reasons exist, it must then consider the § 3553(a) factors “to the extent that they

        are applicable.” Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Finally, a court may grant a reduction only if it is

        “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id.

        “As of now, there is no Sentencing Commission policy statement ‘applicable’ to [a

        defendant’s] compassionate-release motion[],” as opposed to such a motion brought by the

        BOP. United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 283 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, currently, courts

        may consider any extraordinary and compelling reasons for release that a defendant raises.

        Id. at 284.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7427      Doc: 12         Filed: 08/30/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

               When deciding a compassionate release motion, “district courts bear the standard

        obligation to explain their decisions and demonstrate that they considered the parties’

        arguments.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022) (addressing, in

        context of motion under § 404 of First Step Act, whether courts may consider intervening

        changes of law or fact in exercising discretion to reduce a sentence). However, it is

        well-established that a district court is not required to expressly acknowledge and address

        every argument offered in support of a motion for compassionate release. High, 997 F.3d

        at 188-89. Rather, “just how much of an explanation is required depends upon the narrow

        circumstances of the particular case.” Jenkins, 22 F.4th at 170. Ultimately, a court’s

        explanation is sufficient if it demonstrates that the court “was aware of the arguments,

        considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an ‘intuitive reason’ for” denying the

        motion. High, 997 F.3d at 191 (quoting Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,

        1967 (2018)); see Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404 (noting court is not “required to articulate

        anything more than a brief statement of reasons” when denying First Step Act motion and

        must only “make clear that it reasoned through the parties’ arguments” (cleaned up)).

               Here, the district court’s brief discussion adequately demonstrated that it considered

        Salazar-Velasquez’s arguments. Regarding Salazar-Velasquez’s contentions of ineffective

        assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and Sentencing Guidelines errors during his criminal

        proceeding, “a compassionate release motion cannot be used to challenge the validity of a

        defendant’s conviction or sentence.” United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 272 (4th

        Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (June 16, 2023). Because these claims were frivolous,

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7427         Doc: 12        Filed: 08/30/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        the district court did not err in failing to provide a detailed explanation of its rejection of

        them.

                Turning to Salazar-Velasquez’s claims regarding his personal circumstances—age,

        medical conditions, risk of COVID complications—the district court considered these in

        Salazar-Velasquez’s prior compassionate release motion, and Salazar-Velasquez fails to

        explain how his circumstances have changed, with the exception of his vaccination.

        However, Salazar-Velasquez does not explain how his vaccination strengthens his motion

        or provides an extraordinary or compelling reason for his release. As such, the district

        court did not err in providing only a brief discussion of these factors, and the district court’s

        failure to consider Salazar-Velasquez’s vaccination was, at most, harmless error.

                Next, Salazar-Velasquez relies on amendments to BOP regulations and the

        Sentencing Guidelines. Even assuming Salazar-Velasquez is entitled to earlier release

        under the new BOP regulations, he fails to argue how the new regulations, presumably

        applicable to the entire prison population, would establish an extraordinary and compelling

        reason for his compassionate release. In any event, Salazar-Velasquez is free to apply to

        the BOP for relief.

                In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider

        potential Guidelines amendments that had not been either adopted or enacted at the time of

        its decision. After the effective date of the amendments, Salazar-Velasquez is free to apply

        again for compassionate release under the new standards. Further, even assuming the

        district court erred in some manner in finding that there was no extraordinary and

        compelling reason for Salazar-Velasquez’s release, Salazar-Velasquez does not challenge

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7427      Doc: 12         Filed: 08/30/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        the district court’s separate determination that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors weigh against

        his release.

               Finally, Salazar-Velasquez requests permission to file an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion. However, a motion for compassionate release is not the proper filing to seek this

        relief. The proper procedure would be to file a § 2255 motion and seek equitable tolling

        in that proceeding. Moreover, while Salazar-Velasquez asserts that his attorney’s and the

        Government’s alleged misconduct caused his default and that he is now barred from filing

        a motion, such is insufficient to qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason for

        release. See Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 271.

               Accordingly, we grant Salazar-Velasquez’s motions to supplement and amend his

        informal brief and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     5