United States v. Camillo-Amisano

Case: 21-10945 Document: 00516334516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 21-10945 May 26, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Phillip Camillo-Amisano,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CR-177-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Phillip Camillo-Amisano, federal prisoner # 42353-086, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that he has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release due to his hypertension, COVID-

Case: 21-10945 Document: 00516334516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2022

No. 21-10945

19, unconstitutional prison conditions during the pandemic, and what he describes as a “harsh sentence.” We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

Contrary to Camillo-Amisano’s assertion, he has not served a large part of the 300-month sentence he received for his enticement of a minor conviction, and his health condition is not an extraordinary or compelling reason. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021). His complaints about COVID-19 amount to a generalized fear of contracting COVID-19, which “doesn’t automatically entitle a prisoner to release.” Thompson, 984 F.3d at 435. Furthermore, an appeal from the denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement or an original sentence. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). We do not consider Camillo- Amisano’s newly raised ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Camillo-Amisano has failed to show that the district court’s finding that extraordinary and compelling reasons did not warrant compassionate release was based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence or an error of law. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.

Moreover, the district court also denied Camillo-Amisano’s motion on the basis that a weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant relief. Camillo-Amisano’s contention that the danger he poses to society is diminished given his lack of criminal history and deportation status, amounts to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, which “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.