Court Opinion

ID: 9926209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 01:00:36.502139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:11.162768
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50404        Document: 00517041550             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/23/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50404
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               January 23, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Eliodoro Denova Lopez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:16-CR-68-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Eliodoro Denova Lopez, federal prisoner # 68688-380, appeals the
   denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release.
   On appeal, Denova Lopez contends that extraordinary and compelling
   circumstances justify his release insofar as (i) his guidelines range at
   sentencing was erroneously calculated, he would receive a lower sentence if
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50404      Document: 00517041550          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/23/2024

                                    No. 23-50404

   he were sentenced today, he was entitled to application of the safety valve
   under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and he was entitled to a downward variance due
   to his status as a deportable alien; (ii) due to various risk factors, he has a
   susceptibility to contracting severe COVID-19; and (iii) he was needed to
   care for his elderly parents who reside in Mexico. He also argues that the 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors favor relief.
          We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an abuse of
   discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
   As to Denova Lopez’s sentencing arguments, he cannot “challenge the
   legality or the duration of his sentence” through a motion for compassionate
   release. United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023). As to his
   other arguments, he fails to demonstrate any error of law or clearly erroneous
   assessment of the evidence in the district court’s determination that (a) any
   elevated risk of contracting severe COVID-19 was mitigated by the fact that
   he had been vaccinated and there was a low rate of infection at his
   correctional facility; and (b) he failed to demonstrate that his parents were
   seriously in need of his care insofar as his parents were “far from elderly,”
   he failed to explain why his other siblings could not care for his parents, and
   he failed to allege the death or incapacitation of any current caretaker.
   Denova Lopez further fails to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the
   district court’s refusal to hold his motion in abeyance until after November
   1, 2023, when various amendments to the Guidelines became effective.
          Because Denova Lopez fails to show that the district court abused its
   discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release based on its
   finding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling
   circumstances, we do not reach his argument that the § 3553(a) factors
   warranted relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th
   Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district court’s decision is
   AFFIRMED.

                                            2