Court Opinion

ID: 9385158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 00:00:24.627435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.283611
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50131        Document: 00516702018             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50131
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                  April 5, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Miguel Davila, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:10-CR-1559-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Miguel Davila, Jr., federal prisoner # 16969-180, is currently serving a
   240-month sentence for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five
   kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
   He moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the
   denial of his collective motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and (c)(2). By doing so, he is challenging the district
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50131      Document: 00516702018           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/05/2023

                                     No. 22-50131

   court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
   Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
          We do not consider Davila’s argument, raised for the first time on
   appeal, that the district court failed to inform him that he could object to the
   21 U.S.C. § 851 information used to increase the mandatory minimum
   sentence for his count of conviction. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
   183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Further, until such time as the law is
   changed to allow retroactive application of Section 401 of the First Step Act
   of 2018, PL 115-391, § 401, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220 (Dec. 21, 2018), Davila has
   chosen to abandon his challenge to the denial of his request that his sentence
   be reduced under § 3582(c)(2).
          Concerning his request for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), Davila
   argues that the district court could and should have considered the
   nonretroactive sentencing changes for his statute of conviction as an
   extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. He maintains that, in light of
   those changes, the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, the low sentences
   received by his codefendants, and family circumstances that would keep him
   from engaging in criminal activity, compassionate release was warranted
   here. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s determination
   that Davila failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
   relief and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief.
   See United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021); United States
   v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Davila has failed to identify
   a nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion in
   denying relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).         See Cooper, 996 F.3d at 286;
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
          Accordingly, Davila’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir.

                                          2
Case: 22-50131     Document: 00516702018           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/05/2023

                                    No. 22-50131

   R. 42.2. All other outstanding motions filed by Davila in this appeal are also
   DENIED.

                                         3