United States v. Garcia-Hernandez

Case: 21-40736 Document: 00516262466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 31, 2022 No. 21-40736 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Hernan Garcia-Hernandez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:20-CR-1687-1

Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Hernan Garcia-Hernandez, federal prisoner # 85933-079, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. He argues that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to show extraordinary and Case: 21-40736 Document: 00516262466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2022

No. 21-40736 compelling reasons warranting relief. In addition, he contends that the district court’s consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors such as his criminal history was inappropriate given his assertion that he was entitled to release based on the risks to his life and health if he contracts COVID-19. We review the district court’s denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The court was authorized to consider the § 3553(a) factors, and any challenge by Garcia- Hernandez to the weight given to those factors is an insufficient ground for reversal. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. As the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Garcia-Hernandez was not entitled to release under the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider Garcia-Hernandez’s arguments challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62. Because Garcia-Hernandez fails to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, the motion for IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.