Case: 22-10127 Document: 00516528339 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10127
Summary Calendar FILED
October 31, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-76-1
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
A jury convicted Christopher Martinez, federal prisoner # 29153-077,
of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846, and three counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Martinez now appeals
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-10127 Document: 00516528339 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2022
No. 22-10127
the district court’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Martinez argues that compassionate release was warranted based on
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the following extraordinary and
compelling reasons: his age, the amount of time already served, his post-
sentencing rehabilitation efforts, sentencing disparities, the COVID-19
pandemic, the prison’s restrictive COVID-19 policies, and legal
developments including United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570
U.S. 99 (2013). We review the district court’s decision to deny a motion for
compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court expressly indicated that
it considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors to determine that Martinez’s
circumstances did not warrant relief, and Martinez has failed to demonstrate
that the district court based its decision on an error of law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence. See id. Because we may affirm on this
ground, we need not consider the other bases for the district court’s denial.
See United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014).
To the extent Martinez argues that prison officials have violated the
Eighth Amendment, claims regarding prison conditions are properly
addressable in a lawsuit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As for his claims that
attack the validity of his conviction, the proper vehicle to assert such claims
is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, see Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th
Cir. 2000), or, in rare instances, a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, see § 2255(e);
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
2