Court Opinion

ID: 9947984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 01:00:36.285378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:50.674389
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50684            Document: 34-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50684
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  March 5, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Adam Chavez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:11-CR-675-16
                   ______________________________

Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Adam Chavez, federal prisoner # 87024-280, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release.
       In his brief on appeal, Chavez renews his argument that the
unavailability of the categorical approach at the time of sentencing for his

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50684       Document: 34-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-50684

racketeering conspiracy conviction resulted in an unusually long sentence,
which constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), which took effect on November 1,
2023. Chavez also renews his argument that since his sentencing, he has
sought rehabilitation, has maintained employment, has severed all ties with
the criminal enterprise, and has cooperated by providing information
regarding the enterprise. In addition, Chavez challenges the district court’s
reliance on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) sentencing factors.
       Despite Chavez’s argument to the contrary, § 3582(c)(1)(A) broadly
allows for the consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, without any exceptions.
See § 3582(c)(1)(A). Additionally, the record reflects that the district court
explicitly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and determined that they
weighed against granting a reduction in sentence. In particular, the district
court considered the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense;
the need to protect the public and deter further crimes; the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines; and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C), (3)-(6). Chavez’s disagreement
with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is not a basis for
determining that the district court abused its discretion. See United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Chavez has failed to
demonstrate that there is a nonfrivolous argument that the district court
abused its discretion by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a)
factors, we need not consider his arguments regarding extraordinary and
compelling reasons. See United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir.
2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94.
       Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal
is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24
(5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.

                                      2