United States v. Gutierrez ( 2022 )

Case: 21-40465 Document: 00516586326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-40465
consolidated with FILED
No. 21-40466 December 21, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Julieann Gutierrez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-1002-9
USDC No. 2:13-CR-617-1
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Julieann Gutierrez, federal prisoner # 31776-379, appeals the denial of
her motions for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). On appeal, she contends that the district court abused its
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40465 Document: 00516586326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 21-40465
c/w No. 21-40466
discretion in denying her motions because (1) it treated the pertinent policy
statement as binding; (2) it did not consider whether the combination of her
health conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, her family circumstances, and
her rehabilitation constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for a
sentence reduction; and (3) it based its decision in part on the erroneous
conclusion that her previous recovery from COVID-19 weighed against
compassionate release, without acknowledging the cases she cited in which
district courts granted compassionate release under such circumstances.
This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for
compassionate release 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). A district court abuses its discretion when it “bases its decision
on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United
States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
The district court correctly quoted and relied on § 3582(c)(1)(A)
when considering whether Gutierrez identified extraordinary or compelling
reasons for a sentence reduction. It does not appear that the district court
relied on § 1B1.13, p.s., or found it to be binding as the district court also
quoted United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021), which
held that the policy statement is not binding. Therefore, Gutierrez has not
shown that the district court treated § 1B1.13, p.s., as binding. See id. at 393.
The district court implicitly considered all the factors that Gutierrez
argued weighed in favor of her compassionate release, including the COVID-
19 pandemic, her medical conditions, her family circumstances, and her
rehabilitative efforts, but ultimately determined that her motion should be
denied. The court was not required to expressly address each argument in
ruling on her § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673
2
Case: 21-40465 Document: 00516586326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 21-40465
c/w No. 21-40466
(5th Cir. 2009). Gutierrez has not shown that the district court made “an
error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” because it did
not expressly state that it considered the combination of factors on which she
relied. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
Because both Gutierrez and the Government presented contentions
regarding the sentencing factors, the record reflects that the district court
implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors. See Chavez-Meza v. United States,
138 S. Ct. 1959, 1967-68 (2018). Gutierrez’s disagreement with how the
district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors is not a basis for determining that
the district court abused its discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
Moreover, because the district court appropriately denied Gutierrez’s
motion under § 3553(a), any other error the court may have made in
considering her recovery from COVID-19 is not grounds for reversal. See id.;
see also Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433-34.
AFFIRMED.
3