Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-03-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Santo Leone
Case Number: 20-40768
Judge: Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
Court:
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
On appeal from The United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
New Orleans, LA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a conspiring to possess at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute charge.
Santo Leone, federal prisoner # 27152-379, was convicted of one
charge of conspiring to possess at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana with
intent to distribute and was sentenced, due to his prior felony drug
conviction, to serve the enhanced statutory minimum of 240 months in
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
prison and a 10-year term of supervised release. Now, he appeals the district
court’s denial of his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because he presents no arguments related to the district
court’s conclusion that he should not receive § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief based
on his increased risk for COVID-19, he has abandoned any challenges he may
have had to this ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993). Because the issue whether he exhausted his administrative rights is
not jurisdictional, we pretermit it. See United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465,
468 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 920 (2020).
This court reviews a district court’s decision denying compassionate
release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its
discretion when its decision is grounded in a legal error or clearly erroneous
facts. Id.
Leone has not met this standard. He shows no legal error in the
district court’s conclusions that his various arguments concerning his
sentence failed to raise an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting
relief. See id.; see also § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Additionally, because the district
court concluded there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons
meriting relief, there was no need for it to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Finally, insofar as he argues that this court should order a
full resentencing, this is inappropriate. See United States v. Golding, 742 F.2d
840, 841 (5th Cir. 1984)
Outcome: Leone’s motion for appointed counsel is
DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: