Court Opinion

ID: 9352844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 01:00:24.267808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:57.543422
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50003         Document: 00516603208             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

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

                                       No. 22-50003
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                January 9, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Cesar Escobedo-Aragon,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 4:7-CR-84

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Cesar Escobedo-Aragon is currently serving a 262-month prison term
   after a conviction for his third federal drug-trafficking offense. He filed a
   motion for compassionate release in the district court. After it was denied,
   Escobedo-Aragon timely appealed. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM
   the district court’s denial.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50003       Document: 00516603208           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                      No. 22-50003

          The court reviews a district court’s denial of a compassionate release
   motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693
   (5th Cir. 2020). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an
   error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal
   quotations and citation omitted). The district court’s decision was short and
   to the point. In relevant part, the order stated: “After considering the
   pleadings in this case, the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,
   the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion on its merits.”
          On appeal, Escobedo-Aragon takes issue with the brevity of the
   district court’s opinion, stating that the district court “err[ed] when it failed
   to address or resolve his challenge to the erroneous career offender
   designation.” In short, Escobedo-Aragon claims that he was incorrectly
   labeled a career offender – and was thereby given an inordinately long
   sentence – because “the probation office employed two wrongfully [labeled]
   drug offenses” when his actual convictions would not have qualified him for
   the career offender status.
          Escobedo-Aragon is incorrect. He appears to believe that his prior
   federal drug trafficking convictions were either state convictions or share
   essential elements with certain state convictions which we have held do not
   satisfy the career offender predicates. See United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d
   347, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). Not so. Escobedo-Aragon had two prior federal drug
   trafficking convictions before the conviction that led to his current sentence,
   one for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and one for violation of 21 U.S.C. §
   952(a). Under then-governing sentencing guidelines, Escobedo-Aragon was
   correctly labeled a career offender as he had two prior felony convictions for
   controlled substance offenses, namely “an offense under federal or state law,
   punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the
   . . . import . . . of a controlled substance . . . or the possession of a controlled

                                            2
Case: 22-50003      Document: 00516603208           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                     No. 22-50003

   substance . . . . with intent to . . . distribute.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual
   § 4B1.2(b) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2006). See also United States v. Frierson,
   981 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2020) (“an offense under § 841(a) satisfies the
   definition of a ‘controlled substance offense’ as defined by U.S.S.G. §
   4B1.2(b).”).
          As the district court correctly applied the sentencing guidelines to
   determine Escobedo-Aragon’s sentence and indicated that it considered the
   § 3553(a) factors when denying the compassionate release motion, the
   motion for compassionate release was properly denied. Thus, we AFFIRM
   the district court’s order.

                                          3