Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Federal prisoner Gabriel Amador appealed the Southern District of Texas’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend and wrongly concluded that his prior drug conviction would still support an enhanced sentencing range under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 851 after the First Step Act.
Amador also contended that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey by relying on drug quantities not found by a jury to increase his statutory sentencing range. The Fifth Circuit declined to consider his argument under Erlinger v. United States because he raised it for the first time on appeal, and it treated arguments raised below but omitted from his appellate briefing as abandoned. The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file its brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Amador was not entitled to compassionate-release relief. In a per curiam, unpublished summary-calendar opinion, the panel identified Rutherford v. United States, Fernandez v. United States, United States v. Austin, and United States v. Escajeda as dispositive and affirmed the district court’s judgment without further briefing.
The court did not consider Amador’s newly raised Erlinger argument and deemed his unbriefed claims abandoned. Although it affirmed without further briefing, the panel denied the government’s motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time.
Key Takeaways
- Controlling Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Amador’s asserted grounds for compassionate release.
- The court would not consider an Erlinger-based argument raised for the first time on appeal.
- Arguments presented in the district court but not briefed on appeal were abandoned.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that compassionate-release motions cannot be used to obtain relief from sentencing issues foreclosed by controlling precedent. It also reinforces two appellate rules with practical consequences: parties generally must preserve arguments below and must brief preserved arguments on appeal to avoid abandonment.
The panel’s disposition further shows that the Fifth Circuit may affirm without merits briefing when intervening or controlling authorities conclusively resolve the appeal, even while formally denying the government’s motion for summary affirmance.