Case: 21-10111 Document: 00516277134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 12, 2022
No. 21-10111
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Pascual Jaime Avalos,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:21-CV-14
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Pascual Jaime Avalos, federal prisoner # 50853-177, appeals the denial
of his combined motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), request for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), and for a writ of error pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. He
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10111 Document: 00516277134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-10111
argues that the district court’s denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion
because he presented extraordinary and compelling circumstances
warranting relief and demonstrated that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
weighed in favor of granting the motion.
This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for
compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct.
2688 (2021). A district court may reduce the defendant’s term of
imprisonment if, after considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, the court
finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”
and “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii).
The record does not support Avalos’s argument that the district court
did not conduct an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors or the
combination of the factors he raised to demonstrate extraordinary and
compelling reasons in support his request for compassionate release. See
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1967–68 (2018); Thompson,
984 F.3d at 433–35. Even assuming that Avalos put forth extraordinary and
compelling reasons warranting compassionate release, this court can affirm
the district court’s denial of Avalos’s motion if it determines that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by relying on an alternate, independent
analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219,
220 (5th Cir. 2014). The court’s determination that Avalos’s compassionate
release motion should be denied in light of the § 3553(a) factors reflects
implicit consideration of Avalos’s personal history as well as the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law and
ensure just punishment for the offense. See Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1967–
68; § 3553(a)(1). Avalos’s disagreement with the district court’s implicit
weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors is not sufficient to illustrate an
2
Case: 21-10111 Document: 00516277134 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-10111
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693–94 (5th
Cir. 2020).
A motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is the statutory mechanism for
prisoners to request a reduction of a sentence for compelling reasons. See
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Therefore, Avalos has not shown that the district court
abused its discretion by denying his requests for a sentence reduction under
Rule 60(b) and § 1651.
AFFIRMED.
3