United States v. Macias-Munoz

Case: 21-50196 Document: 00516301513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 29, 2022
No. 21-50196 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jesus Gregorio Macias-Munoz,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:92-CR-132-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jesus Gregorio Macias-Munoz, federal prisoner # 62259-080, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
compassionate release. He contends that the district court abused its
discretion by improperly relying on the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50196 Document: 00516301513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2022
No. 21-50196
to determine that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting relief. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir.
2021). In addition, Macias-Munoz argues that the district court did not
independently consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and contends that the
district court should have given more weight to factors that tilted in his favor.
Here, the court adequately considered Macias-Munoz’s arguments,
and the record supports its conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors weighed
against release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965
(2018). Macias-Munoz has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693
(5th Cir. 2020). Because the district court’s independent § 3553(a) analysis
supports the dismissal, it is unnecessary to consider Macias-Munoz’s
arguments challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v.
Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11
F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
2