United States v. Gandara-Granillo

Case: 21-50251 Document: 00516259965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 30, 2022
No. 21-50251 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Rene Gandara-Granillo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:92-CR-132-2
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Rene Gandara-Granillo, federal prisoner #62260-080, appeals the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based
on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review the denial for
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50251 Document: 00516259965 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 21-50251
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th
Cir. 1995).
The district court determined that although Gandara-Granillo was
eligible for a reduction, it was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Gandara-Granillo complains that the court did not properly consider
the § 3553(a) factors because it did not give due credence to his post-
sentencing rehabilitation, which, he urges, ought to outweigh the historical
facts of his crimes. Because the record shows that the district court duly con-
sidered the § 3582(c)(2) motion as a whole, including post-sentencing reha-
bilitation, and explicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors, Gandara-Granillo
cannot demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010.
Inasmuch as Gandara-Granillo complains that the district court’s con-
sideration of the facts of his offense to deny his sentencing reduction violates
the prohibition against double jeopardy, the claim is patently without merit.
See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). To the extent that he
asserts that the court erred in denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion
for compassionate release, his claims are not yet ripe for review because that
motion remains pending in the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2