Case: 21-50112 Document: 00515961610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-50112
FILED
August 2, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Benny Ray Regalado,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CR-834-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Benny Ray Regalado, federal prisoner # 44219-380, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a compassionate release reduction in
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On appeal, he contends that
the district court failed to adequately explain its decision.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50112 Document: 00515961610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2021
No. 21-50112
We review a district court’s decision denying a prisoner’s motion for
compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a defendant’s
sentence after it considers the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court must provide specific reasons for its
decision to deny a motion for a sentence reduction, Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
693, but the amount of explanation needed depends “upon the circumstances
of the particular case,” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965
(2018). “In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate review
that the judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that he or
she has considered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the § 3553(a)
factors.” Id.
The record reflects that the district court gave due consideration to
Regalado’s request for compassionate release. Its explanation was brief, but
it referenced Regalado’s motion for a sentence reduction and the
Government’s response. See id. Although the district court did not explicitly
reference § 3553(a), it explained that it had taken into account the benefit
Regalado received by the initial sentence of probation and his failure to
comply with the conditions of supervision, which resulted in revocation and
the current prison sentence. Id.; see § 3553(a)(1). Because both Regalado and
the Government presented arguments regarding the sentencing factors, the
record reflects that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors. See
Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1968. Although Regalado contends that the
district court’s opinion does not detail whether it found any extraordinary
and compelling reasons supporting a compassionate release reduction and
does not make clear whether the court considered as binding the policy
statements set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, we need not consider such
arguments in light of the court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See
2
Case: 21-50112 Document: 00515961610 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2021
No. 21-50112
United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014) (stating that this
court may affirm on any basis supported by the record).
Regalado has not shown a legal error or clearly erroneous assessment
of the evidence in the district court’s consideration of his § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
3