United States v. Iglesias ( 2023 )

Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 28, 2023
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 22-6161
v. (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00215-HE-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
ANTONIO ZALDIVAR IGLESIAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Antonio Zaldivar Iglesias, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Background
On June 6, 2014, Mr. Iglesias and another individual robbed an Oklahoma bank
while armed. During the armed robbery, Mr. Iglesias discharged his firearm into the air
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 2
and pointed it at the bank manager several times. 2 R.12–13. On August 28, 2014, Mr.
Iglesias pled guilty to knowingly using and discharging a firearm during a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 1 R. 22–44, 47. The underlying crime
of violence was armed bank robbery. Id. at 36. On January 21, 2015, the district court
sentenced Mr. Iglesias to 153 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
1 R. 48–49.
In November 2021, Mr. Iglesias moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Mr. Iglesias argued he was eligible for compassionate release in light of
his age (74 years), medical condition, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Iglesias noted
that he suffers from active depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, diabetes,
hypothyroidism, high blood pressure, heart cardiopatia, high cholesterol, tachycardia, and
prostate problems. 1 R. 65. He argued these conditions, especially his diabetes and heart
problems, placed him, according to the CDC, in the high-risk category should he contract
COVID-19.1
The district court determined that while his age and medical conditions were “a
potential concern,” Mr. Iglesias failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons
for compassionate release because his condition was controlled by various medications,
he was able to care for himself in prison with limited restrictions, and he was fully
1
In his reply before the district court, Mr. Iglesias raised entirely new arguments.
He argued, like he does now on appeal, that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over his offense and that his statute of conviction—18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)—is unconstitutionally vague in light of United States v. Davis,
139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).
2
Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 3
vaccinated against COVID-19 thereby reducing the risk he faced. Moreover, the district
court concluded that even if there was an extraordinary and compelling reason,
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release inappropriate given the severity
of the underlying offense and his age when committing it. Mr. Iglesias committed his
crime at the age of 67, and the district court noted that his relatively advanced age is thus
no indicator that he no longer posed a threat to the public.
On appeal, Mr. Iglesias does not challenge the grounds upon which the district
court denied his motion for compassionate release but rather reiterates the arguments he
made in his reply (“Defendant’s Objections to Government’s Opposition”) before the
district court. Liberally construed, he argues that Section 403 of the First Step Act
repealed his statute of conviction. In turn, he argues this repeal voided the court’s subject
matter jurisdiction, which renders his continued imprisonment unconstitutional.
Moreover, he argues his continued imprisonment constitutes an ex post facto violation.
Aplt. Br. at 2–4. Lastly, citing Davis, he argues his statute of conviction is void as it is
unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2. He also suggests that the court should hear oral
argument in his case by a competent public defender.
Discussion
We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate-release motion for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation
omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect conclusion
of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261,
1265 (10th Cir. 2016). Given Mr. Iglesias proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his
3
Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 4
filings but “do not act as his advocate.” United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 864 n.1
(10th Cir. 2019).
We do not consider the arguments Mr. Iglesias raises in his opening brief because
they were not properly presented to the district court, having been raised for the first time
in his reply brief.2 See United States v. Sanchez, 446 F. App’x 149, 150 (10th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished). To the extent that Mr. Iglesias challenges the district court’s denial of
compassionate release, we find no abuse of discretion. The district court provided a
reasoned explanation as to why consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release
inappropriate. We will not disturb a district court’s reasoned weighing of those factors.
See United States v. Williams, 848 F. App’x 810, 813 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished).
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
2
As recognized by the government, Mr. Iglesias’ jurisdictional arguments concerning
the effect that Section 403 of the First Step Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in
Davis have on his statute of conviction — § 924(c) — are not colorable. See Aplee. Br.
at 15–17.
4