United States v. Valdes ( 2021 )

Case: 21-50131 Document: 00516081453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-50131 November 4, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ruben Patrick Valdes,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CR-1326-1
Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ruben Patrick Valdes, federal prisoner # 33070-180, is serving a
sentence of 327 months of imprisonment on his conviction of transporting
aliens and conspiracy to do the same. He has moved to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50131 Document: 00516081453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
No. 21-50131
for reduction of sentence, requesting that he be granted compassionate
release on account of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Valdes
argues that the district court abused its discretion because it failed to consider
his arguments regarding the probation officer’s error with respect to his
criminal history, the Government’s misconduct, and his significant
postsentencing rehabilitation. He contends that these circumstances are
sufficiently compelling and extraordinary to warrant a reduction in his
sentence and release from imprisonment, and that the district court erred in
finding that he would pose a danger to the community if released. We
pretermit whether Valdes filed a timely notice of appeal. See United States v.
Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).
After noting that the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 was not
dispositive, the district court stated that it nonetheless found it informative
and that Valdes satisfied none of the criteria set forth therein. It next found
that a sentence reduction would not be consistent with the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors because Valdes failed to establish that his release
would not pose a danger to the community, citing the nature of Valdes’s
offenses, the fact that he committed the offenses while on parole for two state
felony convictions, his history of prison disciplinary infractions, and the
Bureau of Prison’s determination that Valdes was at medium risk of
reoffending following release.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this court may
entertain a motion to proceed IFP when the litigant has been denied leave to
proceed IFP by the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). To proceed
IFP, the litigant must demonstrate both financial eligibility and a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th
Cir. 1982). An appeal presents nonfrivolous issues when it raises legal points
that are arguable on the merits. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
2
Case: 21-50131 Document: 00516081453 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
No. 21-50131
1983). If an appeal is frivolous, this court may dismiss it sua sponte. 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for a
compassionate release sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse
of discretion. United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir), cert.
denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021); United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693
(5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its discretion when it “bases its
decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). This court gives deference to a district court’s evaluation of the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. Id.
While the district court discussed U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in its order, there
is nothing in the record to indicate that it felt bound by this policy statement
and its commentary. Instead, the record shows that the district court's denial
of relief was also based on its balancing of the § 3553(a) factors and that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United
States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
693. Valdes’s arguments that amount to a disagreement with the district
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors do not suffice to show error. See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
Although Valdes asserts that he is a nonviolent offender, he ignores
the fact that the conspiracy that he led and organized was responsible for the
foreseeable deaths of two aliens, endangered the lives of several others, and
was undertaken for financial profit. The district court could properly weigh
those circumstances and the others it cited against Valdes’s postsentencing
rehabilitation and achievements and the other factors that he propounded in
support of his motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. Valdes otherwise
fails to establish that the district court’s denial of his motion was based on a
3
Case: 21-50131 Document: 00516081453 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
No. 21-50131
legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding. See Shkambi, 993 F.3d at
393; Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Thus, none of Valdes’s various challenges
to the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release present
“legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.
Because Valdes’s appeal does not present any nonfrivolous issues for
this court’s review, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and his appeal is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. Valdes’s motion for appointment of counsel also is
DENIED.
4