United States v. Saavedra-Ramirez

── United States v. Saavedra-Ramirez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: Non Direct Criminal Case: 25-20012 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-20012 FILED April 21, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Rando Saavedra-Ramirez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-75-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Rando Saavedra-Ramirez, federal prisoner #44239-180, appeals, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the denial of a reduction in his 210-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. As he does not challenge the denial of his motion for compassionate release per § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) in his opening brief, he has abandoned it. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20012 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 No. 25-20012 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Saavedra-Ramirez contends that he is eligible for relief based on the changes to status points under Part A of Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines; that the district court failed to give adequate reasons for its denial of relief; that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of granting relief; and that the district court misapplied the law, applied incorrect standards, and followed improper procedures. While we typically review the interpretation of the Sentencing Guide- lines de novo, our review is for plain error if an argument was not raised in the district court. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671–72 (5th Cir. 2009). Regardless of the standard applied, Saavedra-Ramirez is not entitled to relief on his claim under Part A of Amendment 821 because no status points were assessed at the time of his sentencing. Although Saavedra- Ramirez asserted in the district court that he was entitled to a reduction be- cause he was a zero-point offender under Part B of Amendment 821, he does not raise that argument on appeal and has therefore abandoned it. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. AFFIRMED. 2