Case: 20-40845 Document: 00515974703 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 11, 2021
No. 20-40845
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Justin Ryan Serna,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CR-652-1
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Justin Ryan Serna, federal prisoner # 92519-379, appeals from the
district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion requesting
a compassionate release reduction in his sentence based on his health
conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court ruled that early
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40845 Document: 00515974703 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-40845
release was not appropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Before
this court, Serna maintains that the district court failed to consider and give
adequate weight to factors in favor of release. Specifically, he contends that
the district court should have given weight to his request for home
incarceration for all or part of his 10-year supervised release term, which
would limit the danger he would pose to the community. In addition, he
asserts that the court should have taken into account of his post-sentencing
rehabilitation efforts and a finding by the Bureau of Prisons that he was
unlikely to recidivate.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Serna filed the motion
for compassionate release, the district court’s decision is “bound only by
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).” United States
v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court
considered the nature of Serna’s offense and concluded that early release
would not reflect the seriousness of the underlying crime, promote respect
for the law, provide just punishment or deterrence, or protect the public.
The record reflects that the district court knew and understood
Serna’s arguments in favor of his request for a reduction. See United States
v. Robinson, 980 F.3d 454, 465 (5th Cir. 2020). Serna’s suggestion that the
district court did not correctly and adequately weigh the factors that could
favor a modification amounts to a disagreement with the court’s balancing of
the sentencing factors, but a “sentencing judge is in a superior position to
find facts and judge their import under § 3553 in the individual case,” and we
therefore afford deference to the district court’s consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (quoting Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Serna’s displeasure with the district court’s
balancing of the factors that he believes support his request for a reduction
2
Case: 20-40845 Document: 00515974703 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-40845
does not establish that the district court abused its discretion. Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 694. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3
United States v. Serna
Combined Opinion