Case: 22-20579 Document: 00516848331 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20579 FILED
Summary Calendar August 7, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Vidal Mateo,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-521-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Vidal Mateo, federal prisoner #97808-079, appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Mateo, who is currently serving a 360-month prison
sentence, contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
consider whether his rehabilitation in combination with his health conditions
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20579 Document: 00516848331 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2023
No. 22-20579
and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an extraordinary and compelling
reason for compassionate release.
Mateo’s arguments are unavailing. A district court is not required “to
make a point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is
required is for a district court to demonstrate that it has considered the
arguments before it.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405
(2022). Here, at the outset of its dispositive order, the district court stated
that it had carefully reviewed Mateo’s pro se motion and amended counseled
motion, the responses and replies, the record of his underlying criminal case,
and the applicable law. The court acknowledged Mateo’s pro se arguments
relating to his health conditions and rehabilitation and counsel’s arguments.
The mere fact that the district court did not expressly state that it considered
the combination of Mateo’s rehabilitation, his health conditions, and the
COVID-19 pandemic does not establish that the district court based its
decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because
Mateo’s arguments were before the district court and were considered, the
district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Batiste, 980
F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED.
2