United States v. Valencia ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50574 Document: 00516631637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-50574 February 1, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Dalia Valencia,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-228-10
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Dalia Valencia, federal prisoner # 59005-380, appeals the denial of her
motion to reconsider a previous denial in 2020 of a motion for compassionate
release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which was, in
actuality, a new motion for compassionate release. We review a district
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50574 Document: 00516631637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
No. 22-50574
court’s decision to deny a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
Valencia argues that new medical conditions constitute extraordinary
and compelling reasons for relief. She also contends that the district court
erred in determining, in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
that her release from prison would not accomplish the goal of affording
adequate deterrence. She concedes that the charges against here were
serious, but she argues that her lack of criminal history before her
incarceration, her age, her rehabilitation while in prison, and her service of
more than six years of her sentence indicate that recidivism is unlikely. She
also contends this court should compel the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to
deduct newly earned time credit from her sentence due to the First Step Act.
In her reply brief, she additionally contends for the first time that any
potential public safety concerns would be alleviated due to her likely
deportation upon her release. However, we generally do not consider
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v.
Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2010).
Valencia’s arguments challenging the district court’s assessment of
the § 3553(a) factors amount to no more than a disagreement with the district
court’s balancing of these factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of
discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a)
factors, we need not consider Valencia’s arguments regarding the existence
of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See United States v. Jackson,
27 F.4th 1088, 1093 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th
354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Additionally, although Valencia seeks to require
the BOP to apply sentence credits, a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, rather than a
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, is the appropriate mechanism for seeking such
2
Case: 22-50574 Document: 00516631637 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2023
No. 22-50574
relief. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir.
2002).
AFFIRMED.
3