USA v. Macias-Munoz, No. 21-50196 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-50196 Document: 00516301513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 29, 2022 No. 21-50196 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jesus Gregorio Macias-Munoz, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-132-1 Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jesus Gregorio Macias-Munoz, federal prisoner # 62259-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by improperly relying on the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50196 Document: 00516301513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2022 No. 21-50196 to determine that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021). In addition, Macias-Munoz argues that the district court did not independently consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and contends that the district court should have given more weight to factors that tilted in his favor. Here, the court adequately considered Macias-Munoz’s arguments, and the record supports its conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Macias-Munoz has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the district court’s independent § 3553(a) analysis supports the dismissal, it is unnecessary to consider Macias-Munoz’s arguments challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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.
