United States v. Valdez ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10364 Document: 00516543769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10364
Summary Calendar FILED
November 14, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Santiago Valdez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-65-2
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:*
Santiago Valdez, federal prisoner # 54272-080, pleaded guilty to one
count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and he was
sentenced as a career offender to 360 months in prison. His sentence was
later reduced to 320 months after the district court granted his motion to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10364 Document: 00516543769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
No. 22-10364
reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Valdez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
We review a district court’s decision denying a motion for
compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its discretion if it
bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
First, the district court did not specifically reference U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13 in its order, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it felt
bound by this policy statement and its commentary.
Second, when discussing whether Valdez showed extraordinary
reasons for compassionate release, the district court stated that Valdez was
not sentenced under career offender provisions. This appears to be factual
error, overlooking the application of the career offender classification to
Valdez’s criminal history category, which increased his criminal history
category from III to VI.
However, a motion for compassionate release requires a
determination that there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for release
and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors favor a reduction. See Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 693-94. These are independent requirements, and a determination
that an inmate has not satisfied one of them is a sufficient basis on which to
deny the motion. 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).
Because the record shows that the district court’s denial of relief was also
based on its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United States v. Shkambi,
993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
2
Case: 22-10364 Document: 00516543769 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
No. 22-10364
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Valdez’s motion for
judicial notice is DENIED as unnecessary.
3