United States v. Puentes ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10331 Document: 00516591338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10331
Summary Calendar FILED
December 28, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jose Milton Puentes,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-79-1
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Milton Puentes, federal prisoner # 69025-112, was sentenced in
2015 to 360-months of imprisonment following his conviction for distributing
50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(B). In March 2022, Puentes filed a pro se motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), asserting
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10331 Document: 00516591338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-10331
that there were extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction of his
sentence. He argued that his 30-year sentence was unreasonable and the
result of improper enhancements; his mother needed someone to take care
of her; and his release was warranted in light of his post-sentencing
rehabilitation as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, notwithstanding that he
had no health issues. The district court denied the motion.
Puentes, proceeding pro se, argues that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. He argues that
the district court improperly relied on the policy statement of U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13, failed to consider his arguments in support of compassionate
release, namely his post-conviction rehabilitation and his mother’s need for
a caregiver, and erred by denying relief based on a finding that he was a danger
to community. He also argues that the district court did not consider that his
sentence was improperly enhanced under the Guidelines.
We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
The district court abuses its discretion when “it bases its decision on an error
of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Ward v. United
States, 11 F.4th 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation and citation
omitted).
The district court did not consider itself bound by, nor did it
improperly base its decision on, the policy statement of § 1B1.13. Rather, the
district court expressly stated that, after United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d
388 (5th Cir. 2021), it was bound by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3582(c)(1)(A),
although it noted that the policy statement of § 1B1.13 could be used as a tool.
Additionally, and contrary to Puentes’s assertion, the district court
addressed the arguments Puentes raised in support of his motion and
considered whether they warranted compassionate release in light of the
2
Case: 22-10331 Document: 00516591338 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-10331
§ 3553(a) factors. The district court’s § 3553(a) determination constituted
an adequate basis for denying Puentes’s motion; Puentes’s disagreement
with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is not sufficient to
show an abuse of discretion. See Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62; Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 693-94.
Because we find no abuse of discretion in this case, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
3