United States v. Camarena ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50216 Document: 00516995615 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50216
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ December 8, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Miguel Camarena,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:07-CR-158-4
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Miguel Camarena, federal prisoner # 37223-177, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he raises three arguments: (1) the
district court erred when it did not find his purported sentencing errors to be
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduced sentence; (2) the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50216 Document: 00516995615 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2023
No. 23-50216
district court erred in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did
not support a sentence reduction; and (3) the district court did not provide
adequate reasons in its order denying his motion, thus violating his due
process rights. Camarena has filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time
reply brief, and we GRANT the motion. Accordingly, we have considered
Camarena’s reply brief.
We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948
F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). As we have previously held, when a district
court denies a motion for compassionate release, it must give ‘“specific
factual reasons’ for its decision.” United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348, 351
(5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693). Therefore, a district
court must explain its analysis of the § 3553 factors. United States v. Stanford,
79 F.4th 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2023).
Here, the district court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not
warrant relief; specifically, the court cited the nature and circumstances of
Camarena’s offense of conviction and the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of his offense, promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment, adequately deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
his further crimes. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)–(C). We hold that this analysis
is sufficient for due process purposes.
Although Camarena disagrees with the district court’s weighing of the
§ 3553(a) factors, his disagreement is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district court’s assessment of the
§ 3553(a) factors supports the denial of Camarena’s motion, we do not reach
his argument that the court erred in finding that he did not establish his
extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See id. at
693–94.
AFFIRMED.
2