United States v. Hernandez
2:13-cr-00210
S.D. Tex.May 21, 2025Background
- Jose Inez Zapata is serving two consecutive life sentences: one for drug trafficking and money laundering (Northern District of Texas, 1994), and one for conspiracy to commit murder during a prison gang attack (Southern District of Texas, 2008).
- He filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), claiming age, declining health, lengthy incarceration, and rehabilitation as extraordinary and compelling reasons.
- Zapata is currently 67 years old, with medical records indicating several chronic conditions, but no competent evidence of severe health deterioration was found in the record.
- He has not yet served any time on the life sentence imposed for the 2008 murder; it will begin only after completion of his original life sentence.
- Defendant also argued that his sentence was unusually long compared to others and raised concerns about the adequacy of his legal representation and possible sentencing errors.
- The government's opposition emphasized the seriousness of Zapata's offenses, his ongoing danger to the community, and the lack of extraordinary reasons for release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compassionate release: Age/health | No compelling evidence of severe decline | Age, health decline, and lack of BOP treatment | No evidence of serious health deterioration; denied |
| Compassionate release: Length of sentence | Sentence within guideline range, no law change | Life sentence unusually long, not comparable to median | No gross disparity, no legal change; denied |
| Post-sentencing rehabilitation as a factor | Rehabilitation alone insufficient for relief | Evidence of personal reform and low recidivism risk | Rehabilitation alone not enough; denied |
| Sentencing errors/Ineffective assistance claims | Not proper for § 3582(c); must go under § 2255 | Possible inadequate defense, not gang member | Not cognizable under this motion; denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021) (clarified standards for compassionate release motions by defendants)
- United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2000) (reinforcing rule that second or successive § 2255 claims require circuit authorization)