Case: 23-40172 Document: 00516878914 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
August 30, 2023
No. 23-40172
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Guillermo Cardenas-Sanchez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:17-CR-908-1
______________________________
Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Guillermo Cardenas-Sanchez, federal prisoner # 31237-179, appeals
the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Cardenas-Sanchez argues that the district court failed to
provide sufficient reasons for denying a reduction to his 200-month sentence,
which he received for his conviction for importing into the United States 500
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40172 Document: 00516878914 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2023
No. 23-40172
grams or more of methamphetamine. He further argues that a sentence
reduction was warranted given the amount of time he has served in prison,
the hardships he has suffered while incarcerated due to COVID-19, post-
sentencing rehabilitation, and the lack of danger he poses to the community.
The record reflects that the district court considered Cardenas-
Sanchez’s arguments when concluding that compassionate release was not
warranted based on extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See
Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). Cardenas-
Sanchez’s arguments amount to a generalized fear of contracting COVID-19,
which “doesn’t automatically entitle a prisoner to release.” United States v.
Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 2021). Although Cardenas-Sanchez
asserts that he has spent many years in prison, approximately half of his 200-
month sentence remains unserved. See id. at 434. Further, the district court
was not required to grant Cardenas-Sanchez’s motion on account of his
rehabilitation efforts. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404-05; U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.3). We do not consider Cardenas-Sanchez’s
newly raised argument that the district failed to honor his plea agreement,
and he abandons his equal protection and time-credit arguments by failing to
raise the claims on appeal before this court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993).
Cardenas-Sanchez has failed to show that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release on the basis that
extraordinary and compelling reasons did not warrant relief. See United
States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). As such, the district
court was not required to conduct an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis prior to
denying Cardenas-Sanchez’s motion. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Thompson, 984
F.3d at 433-35. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2