United States v. Sidon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 4, 2023
• Docket: 23-10123
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-10123 Document: 00516846513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10123 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 4, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jesus Sidon,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-122-6 ______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jesus Sidon, federal prisoner # 54164-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because his blindness constitutes an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting release. Sidon further argues that he

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10123 Document: 00516846513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2023

No. 23-10123

was denied access to courts due to the district court’s failure to appoint counsel. The district court determined that the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of Sidon, and the seriousness of the offense did not warrant a further reduction to Sidon’s sentence than the one granted at his original sentencing hearing due to his eye condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). Sidon’s failure to challenge these findings defeats his claim. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). As such, we need not consider his contention that extraordinary and compelling reasons justify relief. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Sidon did not move for the appointment of counsel in the district court. Thus, he fails to demonstrate that the district court denied him access to courts or abused its discretion in denying his compassionate release motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.