USA v. Duarte, No. 20-10623 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10623 Document: 00515685998 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 28, 2020 No. 20-10623 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jerry Duarte, also known as “Mexican Jerry”, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-132-21 Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jerry Duarte, federal prisoner # 55772-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a compassionate release reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In that motion, Duarte argued that * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-10623 Document: 00515685998 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2020 No. 20-10623 he should be released due to his age and health conditions, which put him at an increased risk of serious illness or death due to COVID-19. On appeal, Duarte argues that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting a sentence reduction. Having reviewed the district court’s reasons for denying Duarte’s motion to reduce his sentence, we find no abuse of discretion. The district court did not base its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Duarte’s disagreement with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors does not present a sufficient ground for reversal. See id. at 694. Further, we decline to consider Duarte’s argument that he should be released to home confinement under Section 12003(b)(2) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, see Pub. L. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281 (2020), because the argument was not presented to the district court and he has not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting this court’s review in the first instance, see Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
