Hilde Francisco Favela, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, was sentenced in 2018 to 144 months of imprisonment for conspiracy and possession and distribution of methamphetamine. Although the recommended sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 235 months, the district court granted a downward variance. In 2025, Favela filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that a disparity existed between sentencing for pure methamphetamine and mixtures containing it, and he disputed the factual basis for various calculations and enhancements in his presentence report (PSR). The district court denied the motion, concluding that the methamphetamine disparity did not apply because he was sentenced for a mixture, and that any challenges to the PSR must be brought through a § 2255 habeas motion. The district court also determined that a sentence reduction would not properly reflect the seriousness of the offense or promote respect for the law. Favela appealed, raising new arguments about his rehabilitation efforts for the first time on appeal.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial for an abuse of discretion. The panel found no basis to conclude the district court abused its discretion. The court addressed Favela's arguments regarding methamphetamine sentencing disparities, noting that the district court correctly determined these did not constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances because the guidelines apply to all offenders. Regarding the disputes over the presentence report, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's view that such challenges to sentencing calculations are not appropriate for compassionate release proceedings; the exclusive vehicle for these arguments is a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Furthermore, the court held that Favela's new argument regarding rehabilitation and post-conviction conduct was procedurally barred because it was raised for the first time on appeal. Citing Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., the court stated that absent extraordinary circumstances, it will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. The court also reiterated that a sentence reduction would fail to reflect the seriousness of the offense under § 3553(a).
Favela remains subject to his original 144-month sentence with no relief granted. The decision reinforces the procedural boundary between compassionate release motions and habeas corpus petitions, clarifying that sentencing calculation disputes must be raised under § 2255. It also establishes that rehabilitation arguments must be raised in the district court to be considered on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances. The ruling leaves open the question of what specific factual disputes might qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons, but confirms that general guideline disparities do not.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download