Case: 22-40549 Document: 00516816643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023

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

No. 22-40549 FILED July 11, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Armando Bazan, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-975-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Defendant-Appellant Armando Bazan appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He asserts that his medical conditions—hypertension and heart disease—warrant relief because of an increased likelihood of severe illness from COVID-19. Bazan also asserts that his rehabilitation efforts warrant release, contending that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-40549 Document: 00516816643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2023

No. 22-40549

denying him of such relief will create sentencing disparities among Bazan, his codefendants, and other similarly situated defendants.

We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion and find none. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

Bazan has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by finding that there were no extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate relief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097, 1100-01 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-35 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court considered the record, which contains scant evidence of Bazan’s alleged conditions. Bazan also presents no evidence that the current conditions of his facility present any additional risk of COVID- 10. Thompson, 984 F.3d at 435 (“Fear of COVID doesn’t automatically entitle a prisoner to release.”). We see no indication that the district court’s decision was based on an error of law. See Rodriguez, 27 F.4th at 1100-01; Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433-35.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.