Case: 21-50035 Document: 00516033563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 28, 2021
No. 21-50035
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mario Alanis Aleman,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CR-511-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mario Alanis Aleman, federal prisoner # 84561-080, is serving a term
of 360 months of imprisonment following his conviction for conspiracy to
possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. He appeals the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50035 Document: 00516033563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2021
No. 21-50035
district court’s denial of his motion requesting a compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
We review for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when a district
court “bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment
of the evidence.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Aleman
himself filed the motion in question, the district court was “bound only by
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).”
United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021).
The district court determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed
against a sentence reduction, and Aleman shows no error in that
determination. Although he argues that the court should have obtained a
response from the Government before ruling, the statute does not require a
response. See § 3582(c)(1). Aleman also contends that the district court
failed to consider his health issues and other relevant factors. However, the
court’s ruling provides “specific factual reasons” for its decision and reflects
consideration of Aleman’s motion, the record, and the § 3553(a) factors.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Aleman demonstrates no more than personal
disagreement with the district court’s balancing of sentencing factors, which
is insufficient to establish an abuse of the court’s discretion. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2