Appellate Case: 21-1166 Document: 010110615454 Date Filed: 12/07/2021 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 7, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 21-1166
(D.C. No. 1:10-CR-00220-DME-1)
MIGUEL ANGEL VELASQUEZ, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Miguel Angel Velasquez, a federal inmate, appeals from the district court’s
order denying his renewed motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
A federal court may modify a sentence upon motion for compassionate release
by a defendant who “has fully exhausted all administrative rights,” if the court
determines that: (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 21-1166 Document: 010110615454 Date Filed: 12/07/2021 Page: 2
reduction”; (2) “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission”; and (3) the reduction is warranted in
consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s factors and the particular circumstances of the
case. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1041–43
(10th Cir. 2021). We review the district court’s denial of such a motion for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). An
incorrect legal conclusion or a clearly erroneous finding of fact may result in an
abuse of discretion. Id.
In April 2011, Mr. Velasquez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute or possess
with intent to distribute certain controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
and §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(D). 1 R. 7, 252. As a result of a downward
departure and a downward variance, the court sentenced him to 192 months, far
below the original advisory guideline range of 360 months to life. 1 R. 253, 258. In
August 2020, Mr. Velasquez filed a motion for compassionate release. 1 R. 262.
The district court denied this motion on the grounds that Mr. Velasquez had not
shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances and that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s
factors did not support reducing the sentence. 1 R. 325–29. In March 2021, Mr.
Velasquez renewed his motion for compassionate release on grounds of vulnerability
to Covid-19 reinfection. 3 R. 12–24. The district court viewed possible reinfection
with severe symptoms as speculative and denied Mr. Velasquez’s renewed motion for
largely the same reasons that it denied his original motion. 3 R. 97–100.
2
Appellate Case: 21-1166 Document: 010110615454 Date Filed: 12/07/2021 Page: 3
Mr. Velasquez claims that the district court ignored the severity of the dangers
posed by Covid-19 and its variants, so its factual findings were clearly erroneous.
Aplt. Br. at 9–11. This is incorrect because the district court explicitly accounted for
the specifics of Mr. Velasquez’s situation and the risk Covid-19 poses to him. 3 R.
98–100. The district court’s conclusion that these facts are insufficient to constitute
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” is not an abuse of discretion. See 3 R. 97–
100.
Next, Mr. Velasquez claims that the district court clearly erred in
consideration of § 3553(a)’s factors because it failed to address all 19 circumstances
Mr. Velasquez offered. Aplt. Br. at 11–13. However, the district court is not
required to address each circumstance. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 948 (10th
Cir. 2021). Here, the district court’s denial of Mr. Velasquez’s motion shows clear
consideration of Mr. Velasquez’s presented circumstances and § 3553(a)’s factors.
Compare 3 R. 97–100 (addressing Mr. Velasquez’s circumstances), with 3 R. 19–23
(detailing Mr. Velasquez’s 19 offered circumstances). On balance, it determined that
the factors offered in favor of immediate release were outweighed by the
circumstances of his drug trafficking offense, his role in it, and his lengthy criminal
history. See 3 R. 97–100. There was no abuse of discretion.
3
Appellate Case: 21-1166 Document: 010110615454 Date Filed: 12/07/2021 Page: 4
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
4