Court Opinion

ID: 9370644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 15:00:28.647435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.849676
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3139     Document: 010110812547   Date Filed: 02/14/2023   Page: 1
                                                                 FILED
                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                             FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                    February 14, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                         Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                    No. 22-3139
                                              (D.C. No. 2:17-CR-20007-JAR-4)
  MARLON GUTIERREZ,                                       (D. Kan.)

           Defendant - Appellant.
                        _________________________________

                             ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Appellant Marlon Gutierrez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district

 court’s denial of his compassionate-release motion under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3582(c)(1)(A). The government chose not to file a response. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
 determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the
 briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
 The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment
 is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res
 judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
 value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547       Date Filed: 02/14/2023    Page: 2

                                  BACKGROUND

       From 2015 to 2017, Gutierrez conspired with at least eight co-defendants

 to distribute methamphetamine and other drugs out of his rental home in Kansas

 City, Kansas, where he lived with his girlfriend and her minor children. In 2019,

 Gutierrez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess

 methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

 §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), 846, and 860a. In October 2020, the district

 court sentenced Gutierrez to 260 months’ imprisonment and five years’

 supervised release.

       In September 2021, Gutierrez administratively requested compassionate

 release from prison due to his health conditions. The prison denied his request.

       In March 2022, Gutierrez, proceeding pro se, filed a compassionate-

 release motion in the district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), asking

 the court to reduce his sentence to time served. Gutierrez argued that the

 COVID-19 outbreak at the Oakdale Federal Prison and his “particular medical

 vulnerabilities” presented extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his

 sentence. R. vol. 4, at 18–21. Gutierrez explained that he is “particularly

 medically vulnerable [to COVID-19 infection] because he is 42 years old,

 suffers from asthma, diabetes, and morbid obesity.” Id. at 20. He also argued

 that he is a “fully rehabilitated[] first-time offender[] who presents no

 likelihood of specific or general danger . . . of future criminal activity.” Id. at

 21.

                                           2
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547      Date Filed: 02/14/2023   Page: 3

       Gutierrez also addressed the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

 and argued that these factors supported reducing his sentence to time served. He

 acknowledged that he had committed a serious offense, but he argued that his

 health risks and the availability of supervised release as an alternative

 punishment outweighed the need for him to complete his original sentence.

       The government responded to Gutierrez’s motion by pointing out that

 Gutierrez was vaccinated for COVID-19 in spring 2021. Though he tested

 positive for COVID-19 in February 2022, Gutierrez hadn’t experienced severe

 effects. So the government argued that Gutierrez failed to establish

 extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release under

 § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The government also argued that the § 3553(a) factors

 weighed against reducing Gutierrez’s sentence to time served because doing so

 “would seriously diminish the nature and seriousness of his offense and the need

 for his sentence to continue to provide just punishment and otherwise promote

 respect for the law.” R. vol. 4, at 153–54.

       The district court denied Gutierrez’s motion for compassionate release.

 United States v. Gutierrez, No. 17-cr-20007-04-JAR, 2022 WL 2528082, at *1

 (D. Kan. July 7, 2022). The court found that “Gutierrez’s vaccination status

 mitigates his risk such that his medical conditions do not present an

 extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.” Id. at *2. The

 court held that Gutierrez failed to “establish extraordinary and compelling

 reasons for compassionate release.” Id. at *3.

                                          3
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547      Date Filed: 02/14/2023      Page: 4

       The court also addressed the § 3553(a) factors, reasoning that “releasing

 Gutierrez at this relatively early stage would not reflect the seriousness of his

 offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate

 deterrence, or protect the public.” Id. at *4. The court explained that “the 260-

 month sentence originally imposed remains sufficient, but not greater than

 necessary, to meet the sentencing factors in § 3553(a) and punish the offense

 involved.” Id.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a district court’s order denying a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for

 abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th

 Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it

 relies on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.”

 Id. (quoting United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013)).

 Because Gutierrez proceeds pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally without

 acting as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)

 (citations omitted).

                                   DISCUSSION

       Federal courts are generally forbidden from modifying a term of

 imprisonment after it has been imposed. Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S.

 522, 526 (2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). But this “rule of finality is

 subject to a few narrow exceptions,” including when a defendant moves for a

 sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1). United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821,

                                          4
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547      Date Filed: 02/14/2023    Page: 5

 830 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Freeman, 564 U.S. at 526). We often refer to

 § 3582(c)(1) motions as compassionate-release motions. See id. at 826.

       District courts follow a three-step test in evaluating compassionate-

 release motions. Id. at 831 (citations omitted). First, the court “must find

 whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.” Id.

 (cleaned up). Second, the court “must find whether such reduction is consistent

 with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id.

 (cleaned up). And third, the court must “consider any applicable § 3553(a)

 factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by

 steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part under the particular

 circumstances of the case.” 1 Id. (cleaned up). District courts may deny a

 compassionate-release motion on any of the three steps without addressing the

 others. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 942 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting United

 States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir. 2021)).

       On appeal, Gutierrez doesn’t present a clear theory of how the district

 court abused its discretion in denying his compassionate-release motion—

       1
         The § 3553(a) factors include (1) “the nature and circumstances of the
 offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;” (2) the need for
 the sentence to “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” deter future crime,
 protect the public, and effectively provide the defendant with treatment; (3) “the
 kinds of sentences available;” (4) “the kinds of sentence and the sentencing
 range established” for the offense at the time of sentencing; (5) certain policy
 statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid
 “unwarranted sentencing disparities” among similarly situated defendants; and
 (7) the need for victim restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
                                          5
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547       Date Filed: 02/14/2023    Page: 6

 instead, he seems to claim that the district court didn’t err at all. He concedes

 that the district court applied the correct law and properly decided the facts, and

 he states that “[t]he district court’s judgment was not wrong.” Opening Br. 5.

 But he argues that the district court failed to consider important grounds for

 relief: “Sentence disparity review, medical conditions, post-rehabilitation

 progress that work in favor and satisfy the [§] 3553 factors.” 2 Id. at 4.

       As Gutierrez appears to concede in his brief, the district court didn’t

 abuse its discretion by relying “on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly

 erroneous finding of fact.” Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th at 1031 (quoting Battle, 706

 F.3d at 1317). The district court properly found that Gutierrez’s “vaccination

 status mitigates his risk such that his medical conditions do not present an

 extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.” Gutierrez, 2022

 WL 2528082, at *2. A district court doesn’t abuse its discretion by finding that

 a defendant who receives and benefits from the COVID-19 vaccine fails to

 establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.

 United States v. McRae, No. 21-4092, 2022 WL 803978, at *2–3 (10th Cir. Mar.

 17, 2022) (unpublished) (citation omitted). Gutierrez received the COVID-19

       2
         Gutierrez’s appellate brief seems to raise a new argument about an
 alleged sentencing disparity. To the extent that Gutierrez’s brief raises a new
 and independent argument about a sentencing disparity, Gutierrez has waived
 this argument because he didn’t raise it before the district court in his
 compassionate-release motion. Except in extraordinary circumstances, we won’t
 consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. McDonald v. Kinder-
 Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992, 999 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
                                           6
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547      Date Filed: 02/14/2023    Page: 7

 vaccine, and he appeared to benefit from it because he didn’t experience severe

 complications from his COVID-19 infection. So the district court didn’t abuse

 its discretion by finding that Gutierrez failed to show an extraordinary and

 compelling need for a sentence reduction. See id.

       Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by holding on alternative

 grounds that the § 3553(a) factors didn’t support a sentence reduction. We can

 reverse a district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors only if we are left

 with “a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of

 judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”

 Hald, 8 F.4th at 949 (quoting United States v. Chavez-Meza, 854 F.3d 655, 659

 (10th Cir. 2017)). Here, the district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors and

 found that the seriousness of Gutierrez’s offense and the need to deter similar

 criminal activity weighed against reducing his sentence. Gutierrez, 2022 WL

 2528082, at *4. Gutierrez committed a serious drug crime, and he has served

 less than half of his sentence. We aren’t left with a definite and firm conviction

 that the district court erred in holding that Gutierrez’s sentence was sufficient

 but not greater than necessary to serve the purposes of § 3553(a).

                                          7
Appellate Case: 22-3139   Document: 010110812547     Date Filed: 02/14/2023    Page: 8

                                 CONCLUSION

       The district court didn’t abuse its discretion by denying Gutierrez’s

 compassionate-release motion. We affirm.

                                         Entered for the Court

                                         Gregory A. Phillips
                                         Circuit Judge

                                         8