United States v. Medina ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11004 Document: 00516696427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11004
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 31, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alfredo Medina,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-133-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alfredo Medina, federal prisoner # 39027-177, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He also moves to file a supplemental brief. 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).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11004 Document: 00516696427 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-11004
Medina argues, without authority, that the district court erred in
failing to allow the Government the opportunity to refute or concur with his
arguments; his assertion lacks merit. Medina also argues that the district
court abused its discretion in failing to consider the grounds that he raised in
support of compassionate release. However, a district court is not required
“to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is
required is for a district court to demonstrate that it has considered the
arguments before it.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405
(2022). Here, the district court stated that it had considered the motion for
compassionate release and the record and that it was not persuaded by
Medina’s arguments; thus, the court indicated that it considered and
rejected these arguments. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188
(5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020).
He further asserts that the district court erred by heavily relying on
the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement and its commentary and other criteria.
The district court stated that the nonbinding Sentencing Guidelines’ policy
statement and commentary could be used as a tool for review of a motion for
compassionate release, and the court was entitled to do so. See United States
v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021); cf. United States v. Shkambi,
993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021).
Noting the district court’s statement that many of the arguments
raised by Medina regarding mitigation had been rejected on direct appeal,
Medina argues that the district court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors relied on assessments of those factors at the time of sentencing and
failed to take into consideration his post-sentencing conduct or changes in
the law. Medina’s arguments amount to no more than a disagreement with
the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is insufficient to show an
abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
2
Case: 22-11004 Document: 00516696427 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-11004
Accordingly, Medina has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion,
and the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. His motion to file a
supplemental brief is GRANTED.
3