United States v. Lopez-Urbina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 25-50045
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50045 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 19, 2025 No. 25-50045 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Roberto Lopez-Urbina,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-190-2 ______________________________

Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Roberto Lopez-Urbina is currently serving an 855-month aggregate sentence for carjacking, carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, conspiring to use and carry a firearm during a crime of violence, and transporting stolen motor vehicles. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50045 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2025

No. 25-50045

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He contends that the district court (1) failed to address his arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant his release, and (2) failed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the § 3553(a) factors.1 We review the denial of Lopez-Urbina’s motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A defendant seeking compassionate release must establish both that extraordinary and compelling circumstances support relief and that release is warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see also United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2022). The district court did not address whether Lopez-Urbina had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances. It denied the motion based solely on the § 3553(a) factors, concluding that they weighed against his release. Because that ground is independently sufficient, we likewise decline to consider Lopez-Urbina’s first argument. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). As for the § 3553(a) factors, Lopez-Urbina argues that the district court failed to explain why those factors did not support release. We disagree. The district court expressly considered the violent nature of Lopez-Urbina’s underlying offenses, his supervisory role in their commission, and his disciplinary record in prison—including introducing drugs or alcohol into the institution, assaulting others, refusing to work, stealing, and possessing a hazardous tool. Based on that record, the court concluded that releasing Lopez-Urbina would be inconsistent with the § 3553(a) factors. The district court was not required to provide a “point-by-point rebuttal” of Lopez-Urbina’s arguments. See Concepcion v. United States, 597 _____________________ 1 We will not permit Lopez-Urbina to incorporate by reference arguments raised in his district court pleadings. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

2 Case: 25-50045 Document: 56-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2025

U.S. 481, 502 (2022); see also United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184 (5th Cir. 2023) (explaining that so long as the district court shows it considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors, it “[does] not need to say more”). Lopez-Urbina may disagree with the court’s weighing of the factors, but that disagreement alone is “not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez- Urbina’s motion. AFFIRMED.