Court Opinion

ID: 9941807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 01:01:24.971925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:04.067114
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50418            Document: 47-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/16/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50418
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                               February 16, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Michael Martinez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:11-CR-360-7
                   ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Michael Martinez, federal prisoner # 80113-280, appeals from the
district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review the denial of the motion for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50418        Document: 47-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                 No. 23-50418

       A district court has discretion to modify a term of imprisonment if it
finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons merit a sentence reduction,
a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission, and a reduction justified by the discretionary 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Shkambi,
993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021). Congress did not define “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” and instead delegated the authority to the
Sentencing Commission to promulgate policy statements describing
extraordinary and compelling reasons. United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d
388, 391 (5th Cir. 2021). At the time of the instant motion, the commentary
to the Commission’s policy statement set forth four categories of
extraordinary and compelling reasons: (A) the defendant’s medical
conditions; (B) the defendant’s age; (C) family circumstances; and (D) other
reasons.   U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.1) (2021).         That policy
statement applied only to motions filed by the Bureau of Prisons and was not
binding on the district court, Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 392-93, but the policy
statement could inform the analysis as to the reasons that may be sufficiently
extraordinary and compelling to warrant compassionate release, United
States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021).
       Martinez has not shown that he has an illness, medical condition, or
family circumstances that constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons
for release. See id.; § 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.1(B)-(D)) (2021); see also
Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433-34. Moreover, his apprehensions about COVID-
19 do not justify relief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097, 1100-01
(5th Cir. 2022). Even if Martinez were reformed, his rehabilitation efforts
alone are not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. See
§ 1B1.13, comment. (n.3) (2021); 28 U.S.C. § 994(t); see also Concepcion v.
United States, 597 U.S. 481, 502 (2022).

                                       2
Case: 23-50418        Document: 47-1         Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                    No. 23-50418

       As for nonretroactive changes to criminal law pursuant to the First
Step Act of 2018, although our circuit has not authoritatively decided this
issue, we concluded in an unpublished opinion that such a non-retroactive
change cannot warrant a reduced sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
See United States v. McMaryion, No. 21-50450, 2023 WL 4118015, at *2 (5th
Cir. June 22, 2023). In light of McMaryion, we cannot say that the district
court abused its discretion here.
       We note that after the denial of Martinez’s motion for compassionate
release, the Sentencing Commission amended the policy statement to
provide that district courts “may” consider changes in law as part of the
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons analysis, but “only” after “full[y]
consider[ing]” the prisoner’s “individualized circumstances.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(6)(a) (2023). We express no view on whether Martinez may file
an additional motion based on the amended policy statement and his
individualized circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826,
833 n.2 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting “that § 3582(c) does not prevent prisoners
from filing successive motions”). And, of course, we express no view on
whether any such motion should be granted.
       The district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors
and explicitly found that the nature and circumstances of Martinez’s offense
and his history and characteristics did not support a sentence reduction and
that a reduced sentence would not reflect the seriousness of his offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate
deterrence, or protect the public. Because the district court did not rely on
an impermissible sentencing factor and did not fail to consider a relevant
factor, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in this case.
See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
       AFFIRMED.

                                         3