United States v. Perales ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 6, 2022
No. 21-10611 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Perales,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:17-CR-74-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Perales, federal prisoner # 43787-177, appeals the denial of
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. He argues
that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to show extraordinary
and compelling reasons warranting relief and failed to sufficiently explain its
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 21-10611
reasons for concluding that release was unwarranted under the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.
We review the district court’s denial for an abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). We may
consider the entire record, going back to the original sentencing, in deciding
whether the district court adequately justified its sentencing decision. See
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965–67 (2018). Here, the
district court’s explanation of the factual reasons supporting its denial of
Perales’ motion is neither lengthy nor detailed. Indeed, the district court’s
order occupies only a single page. Nevertheless, the “specific factual
reasons” for the district court’s decision are reasonably inferable when the
district court’s order is considered together with the record in this matter.
The 2021 order denying Perales’ motion begins by stating that the
motion—which focuses on risks associated with the Covid-19 virus—was
considered and that Perales had failed to show extraordinary and compelling
reasons warranting relief. The district court’s order alternatively denies the
motion based on the court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, noting
that courts granting compassionate release “‘have done so for defendants
who have already served the lion’s share of their sentences. . . .’”
Importantly, the district court judge who decided Perales’ motion for
compassionate release also determined his original sentence, in 2018, after
considering Perales’ Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The PSR
reveals that Perales’ offense was more serious than a standard felon-in-
possession offense. See PSR, ¶¶ 10–18 (indicating that, while on supervised
release, Perales accepted a number of firearms in purported payment of a
debt; brokered with others to sell some of the firearms on his behalf; and
asked his girlfriend to claim responsibility for the weapons (upon learning
they were stolen property) to avoid apprehension). The PSR also detailed
2
Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 21-10611
Perales’ extensive criminal history. Id. at ¶¶ 37–47 (noting multiple
convictions for robbery and burglary, as well as a previous felon-in-possession
conviction, yielding a criminal history category of VI). Furthermore, at the
original sentencing hearing, the district judge rejected Perales’ request for a
sentence at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, 1 explaining that a
top-of-the-guidelines sentence of 96 months was imposed in order to
adequately address the sentencing objectives of punishment and deterrence.2
Given the foregoing, although the district court’s order does not detail
the factual reasons for denying Perales’ motion for compassionate release,
the rationale for the court’s decision is adequately inferable when the order
is considered together with the record from Perales’ original sentencing
record, particularly including the PSR and the sentencing hearing transcript.
In short, it is evident that the district court was not persuaded that Perales’
concerns regarding the risks associated with the COVID-19 virus sufficiently
outweighed the § 3553 factors on which his sentence of 96 months was based.
See § 3553(a)(1) & (a)(2); see also Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1965-67;
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693; see also United States v. Suttle, No. 21-50576,
2022 WL 1421164 (5th Cir. 2022)(unpub.)(order denying motion for
compassionate release was vacated and remanded because order lacked
“specific factual reasons” for decision, presiding judge had not decided
original sentence, and rationale for decision was not otherwise inferable from
record); United States v. Sauseda, No. 21-50210, 2022 WL 989371, *2 (5th
Cir. 2022)(unpub.) (where the same judge imposed the original sentence, the
1
The request was premised in part on Perales’ purported need to receive cancer
treatment.
2
The term of imprisonment also was ordered to run consecutively to any
revocation sentence imposed in Case No. 1:17-CR-088-01-C then-pending in the Northern
District of Texas, Abilene Division.
3
Case: 21-10611 Document: 00516345400 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 21-10611
weight given to § 3553(a) factors in deciding subsequent motion for
compassionate release may be inferable from original sentencing decision) .
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED on that
basis, and we do not consider Perales’ arguments challenging the district
court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling
reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62
(5th Cir. 2021). Perales’ assertion that the district court committed
procedural error by failing to rule on his motion for the appointment of
counsel is patently incorrect as the court in fact denied that motion by
separate order on the same date it denied compassionate release. Lastly,
Perales’ motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States
v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008).
4