Court Opinion

ID: 9383389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 16:00:38.300867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.249970
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-5057     Document: 010110835310       Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                               No. 22-5057
  v.                                                (D.C. No. 4:15-CR-00046-CVE-1)
                                                               (N.D. Okla.)
  ERNESTO MENDOZA-CONTRERAS,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Ernesto Mendoza-Contreras, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals

 from the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under

 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

 Because Mr. Mendoza-Contreras has not shown that the district court abused its

 discretion, we affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-5057    Document: 010110835310        Date Filed: 03/30/2023      Page: 2

 I.    Background

       Mr. Mendoza-Contreras pleaded guilty to a federal drug-conspiracy offense in

 2015. The district court sentenced him to 156 months’ imprisonment. His projected

 release date is July 16, 2026.

       Mr. Mendoza-Contreras filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under

 § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) on April 21, 2022, arguing that extraordinary and compelling

 reasons warranted a reduction in his sentence to time served. He relied on the

 following circumstances: prison conditions related to the spread of COVID-19 at

 North Lake CI, his medical conditions that increase his risk of serious illness if he

 becomes infected with COVID-19, and a need to care for family members with

 serious health conditions. The government filed a response opposing the motion on

 May 20, 2022, and the district court denied it on May 27.1

       The district court reviewed Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s presentence report,

 which states that he had reported that “he is in generally good health and taking

 medication for high cholesterol and hypertension.” R., Vol. 3 at 80. At the time he

 filed his motion, his prison medical records indicated that he took daily medication

 for hypothyroidism and hyperlipidemia and that he was not presently being treated

 for obesity, bradycardia, or hypertension. He was in his late 40s at the time.

       1
          On May 31, 2022, Mr. Mendoza-Contreras moved for an extension of time to
 file a reply. Because the district court had already ruled on his motion for
 compassionate release, it denied his motion for an extension as moot. Unaware of
 the district court’s denial of compassionate release, Mr. Mendoza-Contreras filed a
 reply on June 9.
                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-5057     Document: 010110835310          Date Filed: 03/30/2023      Page: 3

 Mr. Mendoza-Contreras was classified as “care level 2 – stable, chronic care, with

 follow up care as needed.” Id. He received a COVID-19 vaccination in May 2021

 and a COVID-19 booster in December 2021, as well as vaccinations against other

 communicable diseases.

        The district court also made findings regarding the conditions at

 Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s prison facility, noting it was “aware that, at North Lake

 CI, . . . there are currently no COVID-19 positive inmates.” Id. at 81. The court

 stated that “[t]his controlled infection rate suggests that the facility is complying with

 the Bureau of Prison[s’] COVID-19 response plan, to include social distancing,

 surface sanitation, and availability of the COVID-19 vaccine.” Id. Acknowledging

 that the risk of infection is greater in an institutional setting, the court said the issue

 was “the likelihood of life-threatening or serious chronic complications should an

 inmate become infected.” Id. It stated it “must balance this risk against its

 responsibility to uphold the reasons for imposition of an imprisonment sentence.” Id.

        The district court concluded:

        The record clearly reflects that defendant is not at undue risk. Although
        defendant suffers from ailments that, according to the Centers for Disease
        Control and Prevention [CDC], may place him at a higher risk of severe
        response to COVID-19, the Court finds that defendant is not in jeopardy of
        serious complications should he contract the virus.

 Id. In making this finding, the court pointed to Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s medical

 history, his “comprehensive medical care,” the prescriptions he takes “to reduce risk

 factors,” his vaccination status for COVID-19 and other communicable diseases, and

 his “imprisonment at a low infection rate institution that is adhering to Bureau of

                                               3
Appellate Case: 22-5057    Document: 010110835310       Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 4

 Prisons’ COVID-19 abatement protocols.” Id. The district court therefore decided

 that Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s “medical conditions do not rise to the level of

 extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant a reduction of sentence pursuant

 to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).” Id.

       Addressing Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s contention that he is needed at home to

 care for his chronically ill mother and adult daughter, the district court acknowledged

 that the Sentencing Commission’s existing policy statement does not apply to

 compassionate-release motions filed by defendants. It nonetheless noted that

 although the current policy statement provides that certain family circumstances may

 support a reduced sentence, it specifies the incapacitation of a defendant’s “‘spouse

 or registered partner,’” rather than a parent or adult child. Id. at 82 (quoting USSG

 § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(C)(ii)). The court found that “disruption of defendant’s life, and

 the concomitant difficulties for those who depend on defendant, are inherent in the

 punishment of incarceration,” stating that “[f]amily concerns resulting from a

 defendant’s imprisonment are not ordinarily a factor to be considered at sentencing.”

 Id. It decided that Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s family concerns were not “a viable

 reason for reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A).” Id.

       The district court ultimately found that the factors Mr. Mendoza-Contreras

 presented did not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting

 a reduction of his sentence.

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-5057    Document: 010110835310        Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 5

 II.   Discussion

       A.     Legal Background and Standard of Review

       Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended in 2018 by the First Step Act, allows

 defendants to move for compassionate release in the district court after exhausting

 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) administrative remedies. See United States v. Maumau,

 993 F.3d 821, 830 (10th Cir. 2021). The district court may grant a motion when it

 (1) “finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”;

 (2) “finds that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements

 issued by the Sentencing Commission”; and (3) “considers the factors set forth in

 [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable.” Id. at 831; see also

 § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). “[D]istrict courts may deny compassionate-release motions when

 any of the three prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking.” Maumau,

 993 F.3d at 831 n.4 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court denied

 Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s compassionate-release motion because he did not satisfy

 the first prerequisite: he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons

 warranting a sentence reduction.

       A district court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes

 “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” although that discretion is circumscribed by

 the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Id. at 834

 (internal quotation marks omitted). Currently, there is no policy statement applicable

 to motions filed by defendants. Id. at 837. Rather, the Sentencing Commission’s

 existing policy statement applies only to motions filed by the BOP; it therefore

                                            5
Appellate Case: 22-5057    Document: 010110835310        Date Filed: 03/30/2023      Page: 6

 “cannot constrain district courts’ discretion to consider whether any reasons are

 extraordinary and compelling” when the motion is filed by a defendant. Id. (internal

 quotation marks omitted).

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

 an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031

 (10th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect

 conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact[,]” id. (internal quotation

 marks omitted), or “when it renders a judgment that is arbitrary, capricious,

 whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable,” United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1277

 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We liberally construe

 Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s pro se filings but we do not take on the role of being his

 advocate. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).2

       B.     Medical Conditions and Prison Conditions

       Mr. Mendoza-Contreras challenges the district court’s conclusion that he

 failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release based upon his

 medical conditions and the conditions at his prison facility, North Lake CI. He first

       2
           On appeal Mr. Mendoza-Contreras references arguments he made in his
 reply, some of which he maintains the district court “ignored.” But he does not
 expressly challenge the district court’s denial as moot of his motion for an extension
 to file a reply. Local district court criminal rules do not provide for the filing of a
 reply in support of a motion. See N.D.Okla.LCrR47. Moreover, we have reviewed
 Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s reply and we find no abuse of discretion or prejudice
 resulting from the district court’s ruling on his compassionate-release motion before
 the filing of a reply. See Walter v. Morton, 33 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 1994).

                                            6
Appellate Case: 22-5057     Document: 010110835310        Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 7

 contends the district court reached an “unsupported medical opinion” that he “is

 receiving treatment for his underlying medical conditions and is responding to that

 treatment.” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 9. But his medical records show that he is taking

 daily medication for hypothyroidism and hyperlipidemia and that his medical

 condition is listed as stable, chronic care. Mr. Mendoza-Contreras argues that no

 evidence or caselaw supports the district court’s “conclusion that as long as a person

 is receiving treatment for any of the underlying medical conditions and risk factors

 identified by the CDC, and is responding to that treatment, he is not in jeopardy of

 serious complications should he contract the virus.” Id. at 10. He asserts that the

 district court lacks authority to reject the CDC’s guidance by concluding that his

 “underlying medical conditions do not place him at an increased risk of serious

 illness or death if he is infected with COVID-19,” id., although he acknowledges that

 “the district court did find that [his] ailments place him at a higher risk of severe

 response to COVID-19,” id. at 11. Mr. Mendoza-Contreras appears to contend that

 district courts lack discretion to deny compassionate release to any inmate who has

 an underlying medical condition that increases his risk of severe illness from

 COVID-19. We reject that proposition as inconsistent with the district court’s broad

 discretion to determine what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons under

 § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See Maumau, 993 F.3d at 834 (“district courts . . . have the

                                             7
Appellate Case: 22-5057    Document: 010110835310         Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 8

 authority to determine for themselves what constitutes extraordinary and compelling

 reasons” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

       Moreover, in finding that Mr. Mendoza-Contreras “is not at undue risk,”

 R., Vol. 3 at 81, the district court did not rely solely on his medical treatment and

 stable condition. It also cited his overall medical history, his vaccination status, and

 the low infection rate at North Lake CI. He contends that COVID-19 vaccinations

 and boosters are not 100% effective. But we have recognized that “access to

 vaccination” may “weigh against a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons.”

 United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 939 n.5 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

 2742 (2022); see id. at 936 n.2 (noting “a growing consensus that either receiving or

 refusing COVID-19 vaccination weighs against a finding of extraordinary and

 compelling circumstances” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And according to the

 CDC, vaccination does lessen the potential for severe illness from COVID-19.3 The

 scientific community has struggled in trying to fully and accurately assess the risks

 from COVID-19. The decision by the district court in this case ultimately may prove

 to be scientifically unsound. But in the present uncertain state of knowledge, we

 cannot say that its assessment of the risk to Mr. Mendoza-Contreras was clearly

 erroneous.

       3
          “COVID-19 vaccines help protect against severe illness, hospitalization, and
 death. People who are up to date on COVID-19 vaccines are much less likely to
 experience severe symptoms than people who are not up to date, if they get infected
 with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.”
 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-
 effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html (last visited March 28, 2023).
                                             8
Appellate Case: 22-5057     Document: 010110835310        Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 9

        Mr. Mendoza-Contreras argues the district court’s finding regarding the lack

 of positive COVID-19 cases at North Lake CI is clearly erroneous because the BOP

 website the government cited for this fact does not list any statistics for that prison

 facility. See R., Vol. 3 at 51 & n.3. He is correct that the BOP website currently

 does not list that prison facility. See

 https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19_statistics.html (last visited March 22,

 2023). But he failed to provide any evidence that the website did not include the

 relevant statistics as of May 17, 2022, when the government cited it. And his

 assertion that “it is highly unlikely that North Lake CI is completely free from

 infection,” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 16, does not demonstrate that the district court’s

 factual finding is clearly erroneous. Nor did the district court ignore

 Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s arguments that North Lake CI’s design makes it impossible

 to implement CDC guidelines and that the prison facility “completely mishandled the

 COVID-19 pandemic,” id. The court found to the contrary that the “controlled

 infection rate” at North Lake CI “suggests that the facility is complying with the

 Bureau of Prison[s’] COVID-19 response plan.” R., Vol. 3 at 81.

        Finally, Mr. Mendoza-Contreras cites an unpublished district-court decision

 granting compassionate release to a prisoner housed at North Lake CI in 2020 based

 on an underlying medical condition that increased his risk of serious illness from

 COVID-19. We are not persuaded that this ruling demonstrates that the district court

 abused its discretion by denying Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s motion under different

 circumstances in 2022.

                                             9
Appellate Case: 22-5057     Document: 010110835310         Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 10

        Mr. Mendoza-Contreras fails to show that the district court abused its

  discretion in concluding that his medical conditions and the conditions at North Lake

  CI do not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a

  reduction in his sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

        C.     Need to Care for Ailing Family Members

        Mr. Mendoza-Contreras also challenges the district court’s conclusion that his

  asserted need to care for his elderly mother and adult daughter, both of whom have

  serious health conditions, does not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason

  warranting his release. He first argues the district court made a clearly erroneous

  factual finding in stating that he cited the policy statement in USSG § 1B1.13 cmt.

  n.1(C)(ii) in support of his motion for compassionate release. The district court did

  misstate that Mr. Mendoza-Contreras, rather than the government, had cited that

  policy statement. See R., Vol. 3 at 82 (stating “Defendant cites” the policy

  statement); id. at 52 (government’s brief citing the policy statement). But regardless

  of which party cited the policy statement, the question is whether the district court

  abused its discretion by considering it.

        Mr. Mendoza-Contreras correctly notes that the existing policy statement

  regarding compassionate release is not applicable to a motion, like his, filed by the

  defendant. See Maumau, 993 F.3d at 837. He also acknowledges that the district

  court recognized it was not constrained by the existing policy statement. See R.,

  Vol. 3 at 82 (district court stating that “the existing policy statements are not

  applicable to motions filed directly by defendants”). Nonetheless, he argues that the

                                              10
Appellate Case: 22-5057     Document: 010110835310        Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 11

  district court improperly limited its discretion by denying his motion based upon

  USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(C)(ii). This argument is unfounded. The district court did

  note that the policy statement “specifies a spouse or registered partner, not a

  defendant’s parent or adult child.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But there

  is nothing to suggest that the district court considered itself bound by that policy

  statement. And the court did not abuse its discretion by looking to it for guidance.

  See Hald, 8 F.4th at 938 n.4 (“[I]t would hardly be an abuse of discretion for a

  district court to look to the present policy statement for guidance.”).

         Finally, Mr. Mendoza-Contreras cites a district-court order granting a

  prisoner’s motion for compassionate release based upon his need to care for his

  elderly mother. See Order Granting Compassionate Release, United States v.

  Galaz-Felix, No. 1:03-cr-00062-TC-4 (Apr. 5, 2022), ECF No. 879. But the granting

  of that prisoner’s motion—which, unlike in this case, was not opposed by the

  government, see id. at 1—does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in

  denying Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s motion.

  III.   Conclusion

         A district court has “substantial discretion” in determining whether to grant

  compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Hald, 8 F.4th at 938 n.4.

  Mr. Mendoza-Contreras has not demonstrated any clearly erroneous factual finding

  underlying the district court’s decision that affected its ruling. And we do not “have

  a definite and firm conviction that the [district] court made a clear error of judgment

  or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” United States v.

                                             11
Appellate Case: 22-5057   Document: 010110835310       Date Filed: 03/30/2023   Page: 12

  Merritt, 961 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 2020) (brackets and internal quotation marks

  omitted). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Mendoza-Contreras’s

  motion for compassionate release.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Harris L Hartz
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           12