Court Opinion

ID: 9554190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 00:00:26.953053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:16.893510
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20579         Document: 00516848331             Page: 1       Date Filed: 08/07/2023

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

                                       No. 22-20579                          FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                   August 7, 2023
                                     ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Vidal Mateo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:01-CR-521-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Vidal Mateo, federal prisoner #97808-079, appeals the district court’s
   denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Mateo, who is currently serving a 360-month prison
   sentence, contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
   consider whether his rehabilitation in combination with his health conditions

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20579      Document: 00516848331          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-20579

   and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an extraordinary and compelling
   reason for compassionate release.
          Mateo’s arguments are unavailing. A district court is not required “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). Here, at the outset of its dispositive order, the district court stated
   that it had carefully reviewed Mateo’s pro se motion and amended counseled
   motion, the responses and replies, the record of his underlying criminal case,
   and the applicable law. The court acknowledged Mateo’s pro se arguments
   relating to his health conditions and rehabilitation and counsel’s arguments.
   The mere fact that the district court did not expressly state that it considered
   the combination of Mateo’s rehabilitation, his health conditions, and the
   COVID-19 pandemic does not establish that the district court based its
   decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
   See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because
   Mateo’s arguments were before the district court and were considered, the
   district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Batiste, 980
   F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020).
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2