United States v. Villa ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50800 Document: 00516611562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50800
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 16, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
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 Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Eugenio Hernandez Villa, federal prisoner # 01208-180, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Hernandez Villa, who was sentenced to a
mandatory term of life imprisonment on his drug conspiracy conviction,
contends that the district court erred by failing to consider that, due to non-
retroactive changes in the law brought about by the First Step Act, he would
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50800 Document: 00516611562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2023
No. 22-50800
not have been subject to a mandatory life sentence under the current
sentencing scheme. He argues that the district court should have determined
that this non-retroactive change in the law is an extraordinary and compelling
reason warranting a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Hernandez Villa also argues that the district court erred by determining that
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 constitutes an applicable policy statement for
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions.
The above arguments are unavailing because the district court did not
base its decision on § 1B1.13 or on a finding that there were no extraordinary
and compelling circumstances but instead permissibly denied Hernandez
Villa’s request for a sentence reduction based solely upon its determination
that the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not warrant relief. See
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2000). In this
regard, the district court took note of Hernandez Villa’s role as a leader or
organizer of his criminal offenses, his illegal presence in the United States
and his parole status when he committed the offenses, his criminal history,
and his disciplinary history in the Bureau of Prisons. We routinely affirm the
denial of a compassionate release motion “where the district court’s
weighing of the [§]3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment.”
United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).
Hernandez Villa’s contention that the district court erred by failing to
consider his post-sentencing rehabilitation in evaluating the § 3553(a) factors
is also unavailing. As the Supreme Court has determined, “the First Step
Act [does not] require a district court to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the
parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is required is for a district court to
demonstrate that it has considered the arguments before it.” Concepcion
v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). Here, at the outset of its
dispositive order, the district court stated that it had conducted a complete
review of the motion on the merits. Because Hernandez Villa’s
2
Case: 22-50800 Document: 00516611562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2023
No. 22-50800
rehabilitation-based argument was before the district court, we will infer that
the district court considered it and decided the motion for a sentence
reduction in light of Hernandez Villa’s contentions. See United States
v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020).
The arguments raised by Hernandez-Villa do not establish that the
district court based its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence when it determined that the § 3553(a) factors
weighed against a compassionate release sentence reduction. See Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 693. His disagreement with how the district court balanced the
§ 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion and “is not
a sufficient ground for reversal.” Id. at 694.
AFFIRMED.
3