United States v. Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 7, 2021
• Docket: 20-10464
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-10464 Document: 00515697171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 7, 2021 No. 20-10464 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christopher Martinez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 4:96-CR-76

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* A jury convicted Christopher Martinez of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marihuana, three counts of money laundering, and criminal for- feiture. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and criminal forfeiture of

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-10464 Document: 00515697171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2021

No. 20-10464

$770,711, and we affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 384, 387−88 (5th Cir. 1998). Martinez filed a motion to reduce his sentence per the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He contended that his extraordinary and com- pelling reasons for a sentence reduction are that (1) the First Step Act made changes to mandatory minimum penalties; (2) the Sentencing Guidelines were thought to be mandatory when he was sentenced in 1995; (3) he has engaged in various rehabilitative efforts; and (4) he is repentant. The district court denied the motion to reduce and a motion for reconsideration. We review for abuse of discretion a motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sufficiently articulated reasons for denying Martinez’s motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693−94. It was not unreasonable for the court to place greater weight on the seriousness of Martinez’s offense, including the fact that a dangerous weapon was involved in the criminal activity, of which he was considered a leader. See id. Martinez’s arguments do not establish that the district court based its decision on an error of law or a clearly errone- ous assessment of the evidence when it determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against a reduction. See id. The order denying the motion for compassionate release is AFFIRMED.