United States v. Jesus Arrate-Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-12700
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-12700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12700 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS ARRATE-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:90-cr-06158-WPD-3 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-12700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12700

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jesus Arrate-Rodriguez appeals pro se the denial of his con- strued motion for a sentence reduction and for compassionate re- lease. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), (c)(2). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassion- ate release because his rehabilitation and minimal risk of recidivism as well as his unusually long sentence and intervening changes in law constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for his re- lease, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(5), (b)(6) (Nov. 2023). The government responds by moving for sum- mary affirmance. We grant that motion and affirm. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review the denial of an eligible prisoner’s motion for a sentence reduction and motion for compassionate re- lease for abuse of discretion. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021) (compassionate release); United States v. Cara- ballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017) (sentence USCA11 Case: 24-12700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 3 of 4

24-12700 Opinion of the Court 3

reduction). A district court may grant compassionate release for ex- traordinary and compelling reasons if release would be consistent with both the applicable policy statements and the statutory sen- tencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). The weight given to each statutory sen- tencing factor is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2022). A district court need not discuss every factor but abuses its discre- tion when it decides the motion without considering the applicable factors. United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021). The government is clearly correct as a matter of law that Arrate-Rodriguez abandoned any challenge to the denial of his mo- tion for a sentence reduction by only mentioning this issue in his statement of issues without arguing why he was eligible for relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). In any event, as the government explains, even if we considered this challenge, Arrate-Rodriguez would not be entitled to relief because the district court did not abuse its dis- cretion in finding that the statutory sentencing factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction. See United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Arrate-Rodriguez’s motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The record supports the ruling that a reduced sen- tence would not “promote respect for the law,” “act as a deter- rent,” or “protect the public from further crimes.” See id. USCA11 Case: 24-12700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12700

§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Arrate-Rodriguez served as a leader of an inter- national drug conspiracy involving large quantities of cocaine. Au- thorities seized 2,114 kilograms of cocaine—the first of several ship- ments planned by the conspirators. And Arrate-Rodriguez was con- victed of conspiring to murder a confidential informant testifying against him and planned to escape from prison to participate in the murder. The district court considered his argument about his reha- bilitation and low risk of recidivism by stating it considered his mo- tion. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (holding that a district court need not address all mitigating evidence and acknowledgment of the parties’ filings established the district court considered factors ad- dressed in those filings). And it acted within its discretion in decid- ing to weigh the need to promote respect for law, to deter, and to protect the public along with the seriousness of the offense more heavily than his rehabilitation. See Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the statutory sentencing factors did not warrant early release, and that ruling alone was sufficient to bar relief. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237–38. Because the government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law, we GRANT its motion for summary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. AFFIRMED.