Case: 24-50368 Document: 38-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50368 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ December 12, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ernest Andrade Zubiate, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-144-19 ______________________________ Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Ernest Andrade Zubiate, federal prisoner # 39504-180, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Zubiate argues that the district court failed to explain its reasons for rejecting his arguments regarding the extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his compassionate release. Additionally, he _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50368 Document: 38-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2024

No. 24-50368

contends that the district court, in assessing the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, abused its discretion by denying relief based on pre-sentence conduct that was over 20 years old without giving any weight to his post-sentence rehabilitation. Although Zubiate also attempts to incorporate the arguments raised in his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, he may not do so. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).

We review the denial for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Here, the district court conducted an independent review of the § 3553(a) factors and determined that Zubiate was not entitled to relief. Zubiate’s disagreement with the balancing of those factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See id. at 694. Moreover, the district court’s analysis was thorough and “relied upon the record, while making clear that [the court] considered [Zubiate’s] arguments and [took] account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 116 (2018). Accordingly, the reasons provided are sufficient. See id. Because the district court’s independent consideration of the § 3553(a) factors provides a sufficient basis for affirmance, we need not consider whether the district court erred in determining that Zubiate failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).

AFFIRMED.