United States v. Tovar-Valencia

Case: 21-20459 Document: 00516337972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit FILED

May 31, 2022

No. 21-20459

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Gratiniano Tovar-Valencia,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:97-CR-168-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gratiniano Tovar-Valencia, federal prisoner # 19844-034, appeals the district court’s 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 that warrant compassionate release due to being

Case: 21-20459 Document: 00516337972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2022

No. 21-20459 sentenced in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the risk a reinfection of COVID-19 poses to him in light of his underlying medical conditions. He further argues that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors given that it found the same factors weighed in his favor of a previous reduction based upon Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

The district court found that Tovar-Valencia failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and, alternatively, that the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need for adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public from further crimes by Tovar-Valencia outweighed granting release. See § 3553(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C). The factual reasons for each of these conclusions are thoroughly outlined in a detailed ten-page order discussing the § 3553 factors, Tovar-Valencia’s criminal history, his current health concerns, his post- sentencing accomplishments, and the parties’ competing arguments. 1 Tovar- Valencia’s argument amounts to a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, which “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief based upon a balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, we do not consider Tovar-Valencia’s contention that extraordinary and compelling

Case: 21-20459 Document: 00516337972 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2022

No. 21-20459 reasons justify relief. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.

AFFIRMED.