USA v. Cardenas-Sanchez, No. 23-40172 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-40172 Document: 00516878914 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 30, 2023 No. 23-40172 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Guillermo Cardenas-Sanchez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17-CR-908-1 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Guillermo Cardenas-Sanchez, federal prisoner # 31237-179, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Cardenas-Sanchez argues that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for denying a reduction to his 200-month sentence, which he received for his conviction for importing into the United States 500 _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40172 Document: 00516878914 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 No. 23-40172 grams or more of methamphetamine. He further argues that a sentence reduction was warranted given the amount of time he has served in prison, the hardships he has suffered while incarcerated due to COVID-19, postsentencing rehabilitation, and the lack of danger he poses to the community. The record reflects that the district court considered CardenasSanchez’s arguments when concluding that compassionate release was not warranted based on extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). See Cardenas- Sanchez’s arguments amount to a generalized fear of contracting COVID-19, which “doesn’t automatically entitle a prisoner to release.” United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 2021). Although Cardenas-Sanchez asserts that he has spent many years in prison, approximately half of his 200month sentence remains unserved. See id. at 434. Further, the district court was not required to grant Cardenas-Sanchez’s motion on account of his rehabilitation efforts. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404-05; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.3). We do not consider Cardenas-Sanchez’s newly raised argument that the district failed to honor his plea agreement, and he abandons his equal protection and time-credit arguments by failing to raise the claims on appeal before this court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Cardenas-Sanchez has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release on the basis that extraordinary and compelling reasons did not warrant relief. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). As such, the district court was not required to conduct an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis prior to denying Cardenas-Sanchez’s motion. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433-35. 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.
