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ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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.
2