United States v. Limon-Tejeda ( 2021 )

Case: 21-50008 Document: 00515959890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 30, 2021
No. 21-50008 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Jose Limon-Tejeda,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:18-CR-69-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Jose Limon-Tejeda, federal prisoner # 03090-480, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a compassionate release reduction in
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the denial of his motion for
reconsideration. On appeal, he contends that the district court failed to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50008 Document: 00515959890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2021
No. 21-50008
adequately explain its decision denying his motion for a sentence reduction
and that the district court abused its discretion in relying on the policy
statements set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s.
We review a district court’s decision denying a prisoner’s motions for
compassionate release and reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v.
Jarman, 847 F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2017). A district court may modify a
defendant’s sentence after it considers the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court must provide specific reasons for its
decision to deny a motion for a sentence reduction, Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
693, but the amount of explanation needed depends “upon the circumstances
of the particular case,” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965
(2018). “In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate review
that the judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that he or
she has considered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the § 3553(a)
factors.” Id.
The record reflects that the district court gave due consideration to
Limon-Tejeda’s request for compassionate release. Its explanation was brief,
but it referenced Limon-Tejeda’s motion for a sentence reduction and the
Government’s response, and it explicitly stated that it took into account the
relevant § 3553(a) factors before it found that a sentence reduction was not
warranted. See Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1965. Moreover, because both
Limon-Tejeda and the Government presented arguments regarding the
sentencing factors, the record reflects that the district court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors. See id. at 1968. We afford deference to the district court’s
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Limon-
Tejeda’s mere disagreement with the court’s balancing of those factors is not
a sufficient basis to determine that the district our abused its discretion. See
2
Case: 21-50008 Document: 00515959890 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2021
No. 21-50008
id. at 694. Limon-Tejeda also has shown no error in connection with the
district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Limon-Tejeda is correct that the policy statements and commentary
set forth in § 1B1.13, p.s., are not binding. See United States v. Shkambi, 993
F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). However, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by referencing the policy statements because it also based its
decision on the § 3553(a) factors. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
AFFIRMED.
3