United States v. Tamez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40672 Document: 00516696303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-40672
FILED
March 31, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Flavio Tamez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-418-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Flavio Tamez, federal prisoner # 14812-379,
appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Tamez focuses a majority of his brief on
challenging the district court’s holding that COVID-19, family and
community circumstances, rehabilitative efforts, and changing attitudes
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40672 Document: 00516696303 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-40672
toward marijuana did not amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting early release. Employing liberal construction, Tamez also asserts
that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion based on a
balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, given that court’s
“misstatement[s]” that he was involved in a conspiracy between 2003 and
2012, as well as that court’s failure to consider good-time credits when
concluding that he had served less than half of his 262-month sentence.
We review the district court’s denial of a compassionate release
motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d
691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Tamez’s assertions are incorrect because Tamez
pleaded guilty to a superseding indictment charging him with a conspiracy
that existed between 2003 and 2012. Also, the district court correctly used
the actual sentence imposed when determining that Tamez had served 123
months (47%) of his 262-month sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27
F.4th 1097, 1100 (5th Cir. 2022). The district court was also aware of
Tamez’s good-time credits and explicitly noted them. Tamez may disagree
with the way that the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, but his
disagreement does not provide sufficient grounds for reversal. See Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 694. Those are the reasons that we do not consider Tamez’s
reasons for challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See Ward v. United
States, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th Cir. 2021).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2