United States v. Garcia

Case: 21-20222 Document: 00516031474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 27, 2021
No. 21-20222
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alberto Bernal Garcia,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-491-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alberto Bernal Garcia, federal prisoner # 62488-479, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Garcia argues that the district court abused its
discretion because it found that his fear of COVID-19 reinfection, in light of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-20222 Document: 00516031474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2021
No. 21-20222
his prior recovery from COVID-19, was not an extraordinary and compelling
ground for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
We review a district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district
court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment, after considering the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if the court finds that extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); United
States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021).
In addition to determining that Garcia had not demonstrated
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduction, the district
court also noted that Garcia had served too little of his sentence. The district
court also stated that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against his release, in
particular, the nature and circumstances of his offense, “ a large and sinister
collection of child pornography images,” and the lack of access to a sex
offender treatment program which would help him reenter society. Garcia
acknowledges the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors against
him, but he raises no challenge to the district court’s assessment of these
factors. He has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion for compassionate release. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
694. The district court denied Garcia’s motion based on an independent
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, and we affirm on that basis. See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. Accordingly, we need not consider the district
court’s separate reasoning that Garcia’s prior recovery from COVID-19
weighed against his release.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2