# United States v. Garza

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10796009

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 7, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Non Direct Criminal
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10796009

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in connection with a § 3582(c)(2) motion

## Opinion text

Case: 24-40425 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2025

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 24-40425 February 7, 2025
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Roberto Garza,

Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-418-3
______________________________

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Haynes, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Roberto Garza, federal prisoner # 14810-379, appeals the denial of his
fourth motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his pro se appellate brief, Garza argues that his medical
conditions, which include kidney problems, hypertension, problems with his
left eye, unmitigated pain, and the need for cleaning of his dental implant,

_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-40425 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2025

No. 24-40425

have gone untreated in prison and that the conditions qualify as extraordinary
and compelling reasons warranting a reduction in his sentence under U.S.S.G
§ 1B1.13(b)(1), p.s. Garza contends that the district court erred by failing to
consider all facts of record in reaching its determination that the above
medical conditions did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons
under § 1B1.13(b)(1) and that the district court made a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence.
In addition to determining that Garza had failed to establish
extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court reiterated its
previous determination that a sentence reduction was not warranted based
on its assessment of the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We
routinely affirm the denial of compassionate release motions “where the
district court’s weighing of the [§] 3553(a) factors can independently support
its judgment.” United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1092 (5th Cir. 2022).
As Garza raises no argument challenging the district court’s independent
determination that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a sentence reduction
in his case, he has abandoned the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
In his second point of error, Garza challenges the district court’s
failure to appoint counsel. He argues that his worsening medical conditions,
coupled with the failure of the Bureau of Prisons to provide treatment for his
conditions, required the appointment of counsel so that his case for
compassionate release could be thoroughly explained to the district court.
Because Garza did not request the appointment of counsel in connection with
his fourth compassionate release motion, our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 347 n.15 (5th Cir. 2009).
Garza cites no authority to support his contention that the district
court erred in failing to appoint counsel for his compassionate release motion.

2
Case: 24-40425 Document: 44-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2025

No. 24-40425

Cf. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that
a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of
counsel in connection with a § 3582(c)(2) motion). As Garza has not shown
that the district court clearly or obviously erred in failing to appoint counsel,
he has not met the plain error standard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
129, 135 (2009).
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10796009. Public record. Not legal advice.