United States v. Gallegos ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50814 Document: 00516394942 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-50814 July 14, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Sara Eugenia Gallegos,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 7:17-CR-136-2
Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sara Gallegos, federal prisoner #90395-380, appeals the denial of her
motion for compassionate release per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). She con-
tends that the district court failed to give a sufficient explanation of its deci-
sion and abused its discretion in relying on the policy statements in U.S.S.G.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50814 Document: 00516394942 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2022
No. 21-50814
§ 1B1.13. Gallegos’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED.
We review a decision denying compassionate release for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A
district court may modify a sentence, after considering the applicable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and compelling reasons war-
rant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Although the court
must provide specific reasons, Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693, the amount of
explanation needed depends “upon the circumstances of the particular
case,” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). “In some
cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate review that the judge
simply relied upon the record, while making clear that he or she has consid-
ered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Gallegos’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for
denying her motion is unavailing. Although the district court’s explanation
was brief, it referred to Gallegos’s motion for compassionate release, the
government’s response, and Gallegos’s reply to the response; the court
explicitly stated that it took into account the relevant § 3553(a) factors and
the applicable policy statements before finding that a sentence reduction was
not warranted. See Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1965. The rationale for the
decision is adequately discernable when the order denying relief is considered
in conjunction with the original sentencing by the same district judge, includ-
ing the presentence report and transcript from the sentencing hearing. The
court was particularly concerned with the seriousness of the offense and Gal-
legos’s history and characteristics. See id.; § 3553(a)(1), (2).
Additionally, though Gallegos is correct that the policy statements
and commentary in § 1B1.13 are not binding, the district court never stated
that they were binding. Also, the court did not abuse its discretion in con-
sidering the policy statements because the court denied a sentence reduction
2
Case: 21-50814 Document: 00516394942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2022
No. 21-50814
based on a balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Shkambi,
993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th
1088, 1093 n. 8 (5th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED.
3