Court Opinion

ID: 9388486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 18:00:34.606679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.610985
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50812         Document: 00516719217             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50812
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                 April 20, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ivan Velasquez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:14-CR-688-4
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ivan Velasquez was convicted of one count of conspiracy to conduct
   the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, in violation of
   18 U.S.C. § 1962. He was sentenced to 216 months of imprisonment and five
   years of supervised release. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his
   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50812      Document: 00516719217          Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                    No. 22-50812

          Velasquez urges that the district court (1) failed to adequately consider
   his heightened medical vulnerability to COVID-19 and (2) inappropriately
   weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failed to give due weight to his
   post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts.
          We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release
   for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
   Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence, after
   considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and
   compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “such a reduction is
   consistent with applicable policy statements.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). When
   considering a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, district courts are “bound only by
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).” United States
   v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Velasquez failed to establish that the district court “based[d] its
   decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
   evidence.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
   Velasquez’s health conditions were not “extraordinary and compelling
   reasons” to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See id. at 693-94.
   Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in acknowledging Velasquez’s
   post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts but ultimately determining that the
   § 3553(a) sentencing factors militated against a sentence reduction based on
   Velasquez’s extensive criminal history, the seriousness of his offenses, and
   the need to deter criminal conduct, to provide a just punishment for the
   offense, and to promote respect for the law. See id. at 693.
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2