UNITED STATES v. HERRERA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-07-22No. No. 20-10720

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of Herrera's motion for release or sentence reduction was affirmed, and her request for appointed counsel was denied.

Miriam Crystal Herrera, a federal inmate, sought either transfer to home confinement or a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, citing COVID-19 exposure in her prison unit and her underlying medical vulnerabilities. The district court ruled it lacked authority to grant home confinement and rejected her compassionate-release request on the substantive merits.

On appeal, Herrera primarily attacked her original sentencing calculation and 480-month sentence rather than addressing whether she had demonstrated the extraordinary and compelling circumstances required for relief under the relevant statute. Because pro se litigants must still brief their arguments to preserve them for appeal, the appellate court found Herrera had abandoned her core legal argument and identified no abuse of discretion by the lower court.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Authority to release federal prisoners to home confinement under the First Step Act
Requirements for demonstrating extraordinary and compelling circumstances in compassionate-release motions
Burden on pro se litigants to brief arguments for appellate preservation

Procedural posture

Herrera appealed the district court's denial of her motion for release to home confinement or sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), with the appellate court reviewing for abuse of discretion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Miriam Crystal Herrera, federal prisoner # 56791-177, appeals the district courts denial of her motion for release to home confinement or for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act. Herreras motion was largely based on the presence of the COVID-19 virus in her prison unit and her assertion that she has medical conditions that increase the risk the virus poses to her health. The district court determined that it had no authority to release Herrera to home confinement, and it denied the request for a compassionate-release sentence reduction on the merits.

We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Herreras brief focuses mainly on arguments challenging the district courts calculation of her guidelines sentencing range and her 480-month sentence. She fails to brief any challenge to the district courts determination that she failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances, as required for § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief. While the filings of pro se litigants like Herrera are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Herrera has failed to show an abuse of discretion by the district court, and the order denying her motion for release is AFFIRMED. Her motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED because the interest of justice does not require the appointment of counsel here. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1985); Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act § 3(B).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.