United States v. Hernandes ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50413 Document: 00515957822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 29, 2021
No. 20-50413 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlos Zuniga Hernandes,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CR-411-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carlos Zuniga Hernandes, federal prisoner # 82559-180, appeals from
the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion
requesting a reduction in his sentence based on the danger of COVID-19 in
light of his alleged health issues. He contends that he did not need to exhaust
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50413 Document: 00515957822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2021
No. 20-50413
his administrative remedies before filing his motion because the attempt
would have been futile and the delay caused by exhaustion could have severe
consequences to his health. We may pretermit the exhaustion issue where,
as here, the case can easily be resolved on the merits. See United States v.
Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating that the exhaustion
requirement is mandatory, but not jurisdictional).
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court ruling on such
a motion is “bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors
in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th
Cir. 2021).
The district court denied the motion because it found no compelling
or extraordinary reasons for a sentence reduction, and, alternatively, because
the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction. Zuniga Hernandes
challenges both findings, but in light of the record, he fails to show an abuse
of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Zuniga Hernandes also
contends that the district court violated his due process rights by denying
relief sua sponte, but the district court denied relief only after Zuniga
Hernandes submitted a motion.
AFFIRMED.
2