Case: 21-50819 Document: 00516274951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 11, 2022
No. 21-50819 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Torres,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-1380-2
Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Torres, federal prisoner # 48809-280, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He argues that the
district court abused its discretion by relying upon the analysis of the 18
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50819 Document: 00516274951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
No. 21-50819
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that it had conducted at his original resentencing
rather than reevaluating those factors; he asserts in support that the district
court failed to consider that he would no longer be subject to a mandatory
minimum sentence of 20 years in prison if he were sentenced today.
The district court sufficiently considered the Torres’s argument
regarding the non-retroactive changes to mandatory minimum sentences for
drug offenses and considered the applicability of the § 3553(a) factors before
finding that relief was not warranted. See 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, among others.”). Torres’s disagreement with the
district court’s § 3553(a) analysis is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the
§ 3553(a) analysis supports the denial, we need not consider Torres’s
arguments that the district court abused its discretion by determining that he
failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant relief. See id. at
693-94.
As Torres fails to identify a nonfrivolous argument for appeal, we
DENY his motion for leave to proceed IFP, and we DISMISS his appeal
as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His
motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2