United States v. Rodriguez
27 F.4th 1097
| 5th Cir. | 2022Background
- Rafael Ramon Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
- In July 2020 Rodriguez filed a pro se motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) seeking compassionate release/home confinement, citing COVID-19 risks, a prior heart attack and chronic heart condition (left ventricular hypertrophy), hypertension, and obesity.
- He initially asked the court to waive administrative exhaustion, later obtained counsel, submitted proof of exhaustion, and the Government conceded exhaustion was satisfied.
- The district court denied relief (Nov. 24, 2020), finding only seven COVID-19 cases and no deaths at his facility, no showing of practices preventing social distancing, his heart condition was not acute and hypertension was controlled, he was 47 and had served ~35% of his sentence.
- Rodriguez moved for reconsideration (denied); he appealed. The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial of compassionate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion | Rodriguez asked court to waive exhaustion; later showed he exhausted administrative remedies | Gov. initially argued lack of exhaustion | Exhaustion ultimately satisfied; district court proceeded; no reversible error |
| Extraordinary and compelling reasons based on COVID-19 and medical conditions | Rodriguez: severe heart condition (15% function), prior heart attack, hypertension, obesity, COVID cases at facility create specific/imminent risk | Gov.: medical conditions controlled; facility had few cases, no outbreak, protective measures in place; generalized fear insufficient | Court: no specific and imminent threat shown; medical conditions and facility circumstances not sufficiently extraordinary; denial affirmed |
| §3553(a) factors and served time | Rodriguez: nonviolent, no prior criminal history, pursuing GED, family support, served >3 years | Gov.: weighs against release given sentence length and amount of time served | Court: §3553(a) factors and limited time served (less than half) do not support early release |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel withdrawal on appeal referenced for procedural history)
- United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2021) (Fifth Circuit guidance on COVID-19, generalized fear, and standards for compassionate release)
- United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021) (discussion that § 3582 and Guidelines do not fully define extraordinary and compelling reasons)
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review framework)
- United States v. Gonzalez, [citation="819 F. App'x 283"] (5th Cir. 2020) (district courts may independently determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist)