United States v. Diaz

Opinion

Case: 25-50967 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50967 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 23, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jason Arriaga Diaz,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:13-CR-174-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jason Arriaga Diaz, federal prisoner # 61351-180, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Diaz is serving a total 322-month term of imprisonment

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50967 Document: 33-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2026

No. 25-50967

for possession with intent to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime. Diaz argues that the district court failed to address his documentary evidence or explain how the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justified maintaining a sentence well above the lowered guidelines range applicable without a career offender enhancement, which he alleges would not be applicable if he were sentenced today. He contends that the district court failed to (i) address changes in the law regarding career offender status or amendments to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and (ii) use individualized reasoning. Diaz also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief without briefing by the Government. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court concluded that no reduction was justified under the § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2). The statement that no sentence reduction was necessary based on the § 3553(a) factor involving the need to provide medical care does not indicate the district court failed to individually assess Diaz’s arguments. Any challenge to the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Despite Diaz’s challenges to the district court’s consideration of changes in the applicable law and his documentary evidence, his compassionate release motion included these arguments and documents, and we may presume that the district court considered them. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). While Diaz argues that the Government did not file a response, it was not required to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2021). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief based on its balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider whether

2 Case: 25-50967 Document: 33-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/23/2026

Diaz demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.