Court Opinion

ID: 9890868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 18:00:33.286373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:31.999443
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50236         Document: 00516931654             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50236
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               October 16, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ricardo Torres,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:15-CR-35-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ricardo Torres, federal prisoner # 63686-380, appeals the denial of his
   motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He
   argues that the district court erred by ruling that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   factors weighed against granting compassionate release. Specifically, he
   contends that he has been rehabilitated. Torres also argues that the district

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50236      Document: 00516931654          Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                    No. 23-50236

   court abused its discretion by finding that he did not establish extraordinary
   and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
          We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for an
   abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
   Cir. 2020). The district court denied Torres’s motion on the ground that he
   was not entitled to compassionate release because the § 3553(a) factors did
   not weigh in his favor. Specifically, the district court found that he had
   committed a serious offense, he had an extensive violent criminal history, and
   releasing him early was not in the interests of justice and would minimize the
   seriousness of his offense. See § 3553(a). Torres’s reliance on United States
   v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1092 (5th Cir. 2022), is misplaced because, unlike
   here, the district court in Jackson did not explicitly address the § 3553(a)
   factors. Torres’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the
   sentencing factors is not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion,
   particularly given that Torres provides no evidence or case law establishing
   that the district court based its decision on a legal error or on an erroneous
   assessment of the facts. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district
   court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the § 3553(a) factors did
   not support Torres’s early release, we do not reach Torres’s challenge to the
   district court’s finding that he had not established extraordinary and
   compelling reasons warranting compassionate release. See § 3582(c)(1)(A).
          Torres has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion
   in denying his motion for compassionate release. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
   693–94. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         2