USA v. Santana, No. 21-60631 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-60631 Document: 00516291760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 22, 2022 No. 21-60631 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose Santana, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:15-CR-86-1 Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jose Santana, federal prisoner #06753-059, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release and concurrently moves this court for the appointment of counsel. As to the former, Santana argues the district court erred by considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before considering whether he demonstrated * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60631 Document: 00516291760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 No. 21-60631 extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. But Santana’s focus on the order of this analysis loses the forest for the trees. Even were we to assume § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a district court to consider whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant . . . a reduction” prior to weighing § 3553(a)’s equally mandatory considerations,1 Santana does not challenge the substance of the latter analysis. This is fatal. It is beyond dispute that “compassionate release . . . [can] be refused after weighing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Any putative error in the sequencing of the district court’s analysis is therefore harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); cf., e.g., United States v. Buhl, 313 F. App’x 717, 718 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that any procedural error in denying the defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was harmless because he was not eligible for a sentence reduction). Santana’s motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 1 We briefly pause to note that Santana provides no support for this contention. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (providing that a court “may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) . . . if it finds . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”). 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.
