United States v. Mauricio Lepe-Cholico

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11071

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAURICIO LEPE-CHOLICO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-00012-LGW-BWC-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 2 of 7

2 Opinion of the Court 21-11071

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mauricio Lepe-Cholico appeals the district court’s denial of

his request for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i),

which permits a court to reduce a defendant’s sentence when war-

ranted by “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The court as-

sumed that Lepe-Cholico presented such extraordinary and com-

pelling reasons, but it concluded that early release was not war-

ranted based on its evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors. After careful review, we affirm.

In November 2014, the district court sentenced Lepe-Cho-

lico to 180 months in prison after he pled guilty to a drug trafficking

offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 21

U.S.C. § 846. The court varied downward substantially from the

advisory guideline range of 324 to 405 months.

In February 2021, Lepe-Cholico filed a motion requesting a

reduction in his sentence to time served under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i),

commonly called the “compassionate release” provision.1 He con-

tended that early release was warranted because he suffered from

1 Lepe-Cholico also sought release to home confinement. But such decisions

are within the discretion of the Attorney General, see 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2);

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136,

§ 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281, 516 (2020), and do not affect the length of the sen-

tence, which is the relief authorized by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 3 of 7

21-11071 Opinion of the Court 3

multiple medical conditions—including chronic asthma, prediabe-

tes, Hepatitis C, hypertension, and a compromised immune system

due to corticosteroids—that increased his risk of severe illness from

COVID-19, and that prisoners were at higher risk of contracting

the virus due to the realities of incarceration and the Bureau of Pris-

ons’ (“BOP”) policies. He further contended that release was war-

ranted based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, his exemplary post-

incarceration conduct, and his detailed release plan.

The district court denied Lepe-Cholico’s motion in March

2021. The court assumed without deciding that he met his burden

of showing extraordinary and compelling reasons. But it deter-

mined that the § 3553(a) factors “weigh in favor of [Lepe-Cholico]

serving the sentence imposed.” The court noted that the underly-

ing offense involved kilogram-sized quantities of cocaine and crys-

tal methamphetamine and arrangement “for the purchase of fire-

arms to carry out his plans,” that his original sentence was well

within the guideline range, that he still had over five years left on

his sentence, and that he was scheduled to receive his first dose of

the COVID-19 vaccine in April 2021, which would significantly di-

minish his chances of serious illness from the virus. Based on these

considerations, the court found that granting compassionate re-

lease would not meet the sentencing goals of retribution or deter-

rence.

We review de novo a determination about a defendant’s el-

igibility for a § 3582(c) sentence reduction. United States v. Bryant,

996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). We review the denial of an

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 4 of 7

4 Opinion of the Court 21-11071

eligible prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for an abuse of discretion.

Id.; United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A

district court retains a “range of choice,” so long as it does not apply

an incorrect legal standard, rely on clearly erroneous facts, or com-

mit a clear error of judgment. Harris, 989 F.3d at 911–12.

Section 3582(c) grants the district courts limited authority to

reduce the sentences of defendants for “extraordinary and compel-

ling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Before granting a reduc-

tion under this provision, the court must find three things: (1) an

extraordinary and compelling reason exists under U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13’s policy statement; (2) the reduction is supported by the

§ 3553(a) factors; and (3) granting a reduction would not endanger

others. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345–46 (11th Cir.

2021); United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021).

“Because all three conditions . . . are necessary, the absence of even

one would foreclose a sentence reduction.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at

1238. Thus, a court may exercise its discretion to deny a sentence

reduction based on the § 3553(a) factors even if the defendant pre-

sents an extraordinary and compelling ground for relief. Id. at

1239.

The weight to give any particular § 3553(a) factor, whether

great or slight, is committed to the district court’s sound discretion.

Id. at 1241. “Even so, [a] district court abuses its discretion when it

(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due

significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 5 of 7

21-11071 Opinion of the Court 5

irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in con-

sidering the proper factors.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

An order granting or denying compassionate release under

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) generally must indicate that the district court has

considered “all applicable § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Cook,

998 F.3d 1180, 1184–85 (11th Cir. 2021). But “a district court need

not exhaustively analyze each § 3553(a) factor or articulate its find-

ings in great detail,” and an acknowledgement by the court that it

has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is

ordinarily sufficient. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (quotation marks

omitted). Nevertheless, the court “must provide enough analysis

that meaningful appellate review of the factors’ application can

take place.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

On appeal, Lepe-Cholico argues that the district court

abused its discretion in several ways. He claims that the amount of

time served is not a relevant factor under § 3553(a). And he says

that the court failed to consider or properly weigh several factors,

including the severity of his medical conditions, his future medical

danger in custody from an ever-evolving pandemic, the BOP’s in-

adequate policies, and his good behavior, release plan, and lack of

danger to the community. 2

2 Lepe-Cholico also argues that the district court has the authority to define

extraordinary and compelling reasons on its own and is not bound by U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13, and that his medical conditions and the pandemic qualified as ex-

traordinary and compelling reasons. The first argument is foreclosed by bind-

ing precedent. See United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1262 (11th Cir. 2021)

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 6 of 7

6 Opinion of the Court 21-11071

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by con-

cluding that a sentence reduction was not supported by the

§ 3553(a) factors. First, the amount of time a defendant has served

on his sentence is a relevant factor when considering a sentence-

reduction motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The sentence the court

originally imposes reflects the court’s judgment about how the

§ 3553(a) factors apply at that time. So when the court is faced with

the choice of reducing the original sentence, the time remaining on

a defendant’s sentence may properly inform whether relief would

be consistent with those factors. United States v. Pawlowski, 967

F.3d 327, 331 (3d Cir. 2020); United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d

691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). While Lepe-Cholico claims that the Sixth

Circuit has held otherwise, the authority he cites is an appellant’s

brief, not an opinion of that court. Accordingly, he has not shown

that the court relied on an improper or irrelevant factor.

Nor did the district court fail to consider relevant factors or

unreasonably weigh those factors. The district court was not re-

quired to expressly discuss all Lepe-Cholico’s mitigating evidence

or every § 3553(a) factor. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241. And it ex-

pressly considered several § 3553(a) factors. It discussed the serious

nature of the offense, which involved large quantities of drugs and

(holding that district court are bound by § 1B1.13 when resolving motions un-

der § 3582(c)(1)(A)). And the second argument is moot, since the court as-

sumed he presented extraordinary and compelling grounds for relief.

USCA11 Case: 21-11071 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 Page: 7 of 7

21-11071 Opinion of the Court 7

arranging for the purchase of firearms.3 It also considered the orig-

inal guideline range, the original sentence well below that range,

and the time remaining on that sentence. And it determined that

granting early release would not reflect the seriousness of the

crime, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or

afford deterrence. The weight to give these factors was for the dis-

trict court, and Lepe-Cholico has not shown that the court abused

its discretion in determining that early release was not warranted

based on the § 3553(a) factors.

For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Lepe-Cholico’s

motion for early release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 4

AFFIRMED.

3 Although Lepe-Cholico appears to dispute these facts, a motion for a sen-

tence reduction under § 3582 is a limited proceeding and not an opportunity

for full resentencing. Cf. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825–26 (2010)

(explaining that similar § 3582(c)(2) allowed for “only a limited adjustment to

an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding”).

4 Lepe-Cholico’s motion to amend his reply brief to include additional “data

and statistics based on the Bureau of Prisons’ publicly available data,” which

were not presented to the district court, is DENIED. Lepe-Cholico has not

moved to supplement the record, and we do not consider information “out-

side the record” on appeal. United States v. Trader, 981 F.3d 961, 969 (11th

Cir. 2020). And supplementing the record is not appropriate here because the

information relates to whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists,

which the district court assumed in his favor.