United States v. Tellez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-50556
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50556 RESTRICTED Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 24, 2025 No. 24-50556 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Raymond S. Tellez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:13-CR-468-1 ______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Raymond S. Tellez, federal prisoner # 39061-180, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, Tellez contends that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for his compassionate release and that the district court erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors because it focused exclusively on his conduct and

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50556 RESTRICTED Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2025

No. 24-50556

characteristics existing at the time of his sentencing and failed to consider “the man he is today” and his “intervening rehabilitation or gang disassociation.” Tellez has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of his motion was an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court stated that it had reviewed Tellez’s motion, and we can assume that it considered his rehabilitation arguments, even if it did not explicitly address any particular argument. See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020). At most, Tellez’s arguments challenging the district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors amount to no more than a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of these 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 by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider Tellez’s arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th Cir. 2021). The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Tellez’s motion for summary vacatur is DENIED.