Case: 21-10192 Document: 00516044776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-10192
FILED
October 6, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlos Porter,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-206-12
Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carlos Porter, federal prisoner # 42273-177, pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to possess, with the intent to distribute, controlled substances.
He was sentenced to, inter alia, 324 months in prison, later reduced to 210
months, pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. See Pub. L. No. 115-
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10192 Document: 00516044776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2021
No. 21-10192
391 § 404, 132 Stat. 5194. Proceeding pro se, Porter challenges the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Denial of a compassionate-release motion is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A
district court may modify defendant’s sentence, after considering the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, if “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
In his compassionate-release motion, Porter asserted he was at risk
from COVID-19 because of his health conditions: kidney disease; diabetes;
and hemoglobin disorder. Porter maintains the court failed to adequately
consider these conditions (“the court is basically silent on those
conditions”). The court, however, assumed Porter’s medical conditions
provided extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and then
considered the § 3553(a)factors.
Along that line, Porter contends the court erred in its determinations
under § 3553(a). The court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors and
concluded they weighed against Porter’s release. This disagreement with the
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to show abuse of
discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94 (explaining disagreement with
how factors are considered not sufficient ground for reversal).
AFFIRMED.
2