United States v. Quintana

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-40248
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-40248 Document: 00516734839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023

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

FILED No. 22-40248 May 2, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Enrique E. Quintana,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:11-CR-25-1 ______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Enrique E. Quintana, federal prisoner # 15321-035, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40248 Document: 00516734839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023

No. 22-40248

Quintana argues that the district court should have treated his reply to the Government’s response to his motion for compassionate release as a motion for reconsideration. However, the reply did not ask the district court to reconsider a question decided in the case in order to effect an alteration of the rights adjudicated, and thus he has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s failure to treat it as such. United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992). Quintana also challenges the district court’s independent determination that his sentence was sufficient under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He concedes that his offense was serious, but he contends that the § 3553(a) factors weigh in his favor in light of his acceptance of responsibility for his actions prior to sentencing, his post-sentence rehabilitation, and the disparity between his sentence and the sentences of similar defendants. However, his arguments amount to no more than a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the relevant factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in independently weighing the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider Quintana’s additional arguments that there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for his compassionate release due to his risk of contracting COVID-19 and his ailing aunt’s need for his care, that the district court erred in applying the nonbinding policy statement of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and in determining that he failed to meet the policy statement’s criteria, and that the length of his imprisonment and the COVID-19 lockdown conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). AFFIRMED.