United States v. Gandara-Granillo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 30, 2022
• Docket: 21-50251
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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.