United States v. Sensat

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-30354
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-30354 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025

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

No. 24-30354 FILED February 27, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Sensat,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:94-CR-197-1 ______________________________

Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Luis Sensat appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) allows a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment after considering the applicable factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) if it “finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” The

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-30354 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2025

No. 24-30354

district court did not grant modification of Sensat’s sentence. Sensat contends that the district court erred by “solely consider[ing] the Appellant’s past criminal conduct that resulted in his imprisonment without giving full consideration as to Appellant’s changed circumstances.” “Congress adopted § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to the ‘need for a “safety valve” with respect to situations in which a defendant’s circumstances had changed.’” United States v. Jean, 108 F.4th 275, 284 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th 14, 26 (1st Cir. 2022)). “[T]o serve as a safety valve, section 3582(c)(1)(A) must encompass an individualized review of a defendant’s circumstances.” Id. (quoting Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th at 26). That individualized review “requires district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise them,” “[b]ecause district courts are always obligated to consider nonfrivolous arguments presented by the parties.” Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 487 (2022). And “[b]ecause we afford . . . deference to the district court” in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, “we in turn require a thorough factual record for our review. Accordingly, the district court must provide specific factual reasons, including but not limited to due consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, for its decision.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted). In this case, however, the district court properly “consider[ed] intervening changes” as required by Concepcion. See 597 U.S. at 487. Although the district court did not reach the legal question of whether those intervening changes met the statutory standard for extraordinary and compelling circumstances as would have been required to grant compassionate release, the district court did consider the evidence of such circumstances that Sensat put forward in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. The district court thus conducted the “individualized review” that Congress has required of district courts under § 3582(c)(1)(A), see Jean, 108 F.4th at 284 (quoting Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th at 26), and explained the “specific factual

2 Case: 24-30354 Document: 56-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2025

reasons” for its decision, “including but not limited to due consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,” see Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.