Case: 21-20154 Document: 00516003040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 3, 2021
No. 21-20154
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jaime Guerrero,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-50-2
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jaime Guerrero, federal prisoner # 79072-079, was convicted of:
conspiring to use and carry a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1), (o); aiding and abetting a
carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20154 Document: 00516003040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
No. 21-20154
§§ 2119(2), 2; aiding and abetting others in using and carrying a firearm
during, and in relation to, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1), 2; aiding and abetting a carjacking resulting in death, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(3), 2; and aiding and abetting others in using
and carrying a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of violence resulting
in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1), 922(j)(1), 2. Guerrero, who
shot and killed one of the carjacking victims, was sentenced to, inter alia, life
imprisonment. Proceeding pro se, he challenges the denial of his motion for
compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He contends
the district court abused its discretion by: confining its review to Sentencing
Guideline § 1B1.13 (compassionate release policy statement); and failing to
adequately weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including by not
considering that the Guidelines are advisory.
As reflected above, denial of a compassionate-release motion is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691,
693 (5th Cir. 2020). The denial may be affirmed on any basis supported by
the record, such as the court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. United States
v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014); see also Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
693–94 (conducting factor analysis).
The court concluded: Guerrero was not entitled to compassionate
release because he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting his release; and, even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors did not
support sentence reduction. Guerrero has not established the court based its
denial “on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”.
Id. at 693 (citation omitted) (noting this constitutes abuse of discretion).
Moreover, there is no indication the court failed to consider that the
Guidelines are advisory.
AFFIRMED.