United States v. Villa ( 2021 )

Case: 21-50280 Document: 00516040057 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 4, 2021
No. 21-50280
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Eugenio Hernandez Villa,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CR-13-8
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eugenio Hernandez Villa, federal prisoner # 01208-180, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he primarily contends that the district
court abused its discretion by relying on the policy statements set forth in
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50280 Document: 00516040057 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2021
No. 21-50280
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, by failing to consider changes to mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenses and the sentencing disparities created by such
changes when determining that he had not shown extraordinary and
compelling reasons for release, and by failing to conclude that the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors favored his release.
We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence, after
considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
The district court did not abuse its discretion to the extent it
considered § 1B1.13 because there is no indication that the district court
considered that section binding, and the district court also denied Villa a
sentence reduction based on a balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. See United
States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Cooper,
996 F.3d 283, 288-89 (5th Cir. 2021). Additionally, the district court
considered Villa’s rehabilitation efforts while in prison, and although he may
disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, that is not
a basis for determining that the district court abused its discretion. See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The record reflects that the district court
considered and rejected Villa’s argument that nonretroactive changes in
sentencing law set forth in § 401 of the First Step Act constituted
extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Finally, Villa has not shown error
in connection with his arguments that the district court erred by failing to
conduct an evidentiary hearing, or, in the alternative, by failing to allow him
to file a sentencing memorandum, and by failing to revise the presentence
2
Case: 21-50280 Document: 00516040057 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/04/2021
No. 21-50280
report. See Dickens v. Lewis, 750 F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir. 1984); see also
United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir. 2019).
Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
3