Case: 21-40006 Document: 00516122622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 8, 2021
No. 21-40006
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Everardo Lerma,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:16-CR-820-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Everardo Lerma, federal prisoner # 33342-179, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he argues that: (1) the district court’s ruling
does not allow for meaningful appellate review, (2) the district court abused
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40006 Document: 00516122622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2021
No. 21-40006
its discretion in treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding, and (3) it abused its
discretion in finding that Lerma’s prior recovery from COVID-19 weighed
against a grant of compassionate release.
We review a district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district
court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment, after considering the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if the court finds that “extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Here, the district court sufficiently articulated reasons for denying
Lerma’s motion. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965
(2018). The district court denied Lerma’s motion based on an independent
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, and nothing suggests the court
considered itself bound by § 1B1.13. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d
388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. The district court
erred to the extent it concluded that Lerma’s prior recovery from COVID-19
also weighed heavily against his release. See United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d
485, 490 (7th Cir. 2021) (explaining that in the context of “compassionate
release motions involving a novel virus,” courts “must base factual
conclusions on record evidence”). Yet, because the district court
appropriately denied Lerma’s motion under § 3553(a), any other error the
court may have made is not grounds for reversal.
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
2