United States v. Rudzavice ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10752 Document: 00516608135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10752
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James L. Rudzavice,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-138-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
James L. Rudzavice, federal prisoner # 36844-177, was convicted of
receiving child pornography and attempting to transfer obscene material to a
minor, and he was sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 360
months. United States v. Rudzavice, 586 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2009).
Proceeding pro se, Rudzavice appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10752 Document: 00516608135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
No. 22-10752
review the district 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).
Rudzavice asserts that the district court improperly relied on the
policy statement of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in denying his motion. As he suggests,
the policy statement at § 1B1.13 only applies to motions filed by the Bureau
of Prisons. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021).
Accordingly, we have concluded that district courts addressing § 3582
motions filed by prisoners are not bound by that policy statement nor its
commentary but rather are “bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the
sentencing factors in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” Id. at 393.
Nevertheless, “we have regularly affirmed the denial of a
compassionate-release motion—even in cases with a Shkambi problem—
where the district court’s weighing of the Section 3553(a) factors can
independently support its judgment.” United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th
1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). In this case, the district court expressly
determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against a sentence reduction.
Although Rudzavice “may disagree with how the district court balanced the
§ 3553(a) factors, that is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 694. As for Rudzavice’s assertion that the district court judge was
biased against him, we will not consider arguments raised for the first time
on appeal. See Bower v. Quarterman, 497 F.3d 459, 475 (5th Cir. 2007).
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2