United States v. Jesus Arrate-Rodriguez

USCA11 Case: 21-12365 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12365 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS ARRATE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant- Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:90-cr-06158-WPD-3 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12365 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 21-12365 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jesus Arrate-Rodriguez appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release and his motion for reconsideration. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court ruled that Arrate-Rodri- guez failed to identify an extraordinary or compelling reason to re- duce his sentence, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and, in the alternative, that the statutory sentencing factors weighed against granting his mo- tion, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The district court denied Arrate-Rodriguez’s motion to reconsider because it repeated his earlier arguments for sentencing relief and because his receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine made him less susceptible to serious illness. We affirm. We review the denial of motions for compassionate release and for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021) (release); United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004) (reconsideration). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determina- tion, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Harris, 989 F.3d at 911 (quoting Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 2019)). “When review is only for abuse of dis- cretion, it means that the district court had a ‘range of choice’ and that we cannot reverse just because we might have come to a dif- ferent conclusion had it been our call to make.” Id. at 912. USCA11 Case: 21-12365 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 3 of 4 21-12365 Opinion of the Court 3 A district “court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed” except in specified circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020). Section 3582(c), as amended by the First Step Act, gives the district court discretion to “reduce the term of imprison- ment . . . after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable” if a reduction is warranted for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” and “is consistent with ap- plicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court may deny a motion to reduce on either ground. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). We need not address whether the statutory sentencing fac- tors weighed in favor of reducing Arrate-Rodriguez’s sentence be- cause we can affirm on the alternative ground that he failed to es- tablish an extraordinary and compelling reason to justify an early …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals