United States v. Quintana ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40248 Document: 00516734839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40248
May 2, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Enrique E. Quintana,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:11-CR-25-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Enrique E. Quintana, federal prisoner # 15321-035, appeals the denial
of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 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: 22-40248 Document: 00516734839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
No. 22-40248
Quintana argues that the district court should have treated his reply
to the Government’s response to his motion for compassionate release as a
motion for reconsideration. However, the reply did not ask the district court
to reconsider a question decided in the case in order to effect an alteration of
the rights adjudicated, and thus he has not demonstrated any error in the
district court’s failure to treat it as such. United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d
1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992).
Quintana also challenges the district court’s independent
determination that his sentence was sufficient under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. He concedes that his offense was serious, but he contends that the
§ 3553(a) factors weigh in his favor in light of his acceptance of responsibility
for his actions prior to sentencing, his post-sentence rehabilitation, and the
disparity between his sentence and the sentences of similar defendants.
However, his arguments amount to no more than a disagreement with the
district court’s balancing of the relevant factors, which is insufficient to show
an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district
court did not abuse its discretion in independently weighing the § 3553(a)
factors, we need not consider Quintana’s additional arguments that there are
extraordinary and compelling reasons for his compassionate release due to
his risk of contracting COVID-19 and his ailing aunt’s need for his care, that
the district court erred in applying the nonbinding policy statement of
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and in determining that he failed to meet the policy
statement’s criteria, and that the length of his imprisonment and the
COVID-19 lockdown conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. See United
States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED.
2