Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50309/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvin Leon Roundtree
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-50309

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alvin Leon Roundtree,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-554-1

______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alvin Leon Roundtree, federal prisoner # 20242-380, appeals the 

denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Roundtree argues that, in denying his motion for 

compassionate release, the district court abused its discretion for two 

reasons. He first contends that the district court failed to consider his 

arguments regarding his extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-50309 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2024
No. 24-50309

2

compassionate release. Second, he argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors by not considering his 

post-sentencing rehabilitation and his good conduct in prison following a 

2020 infraction.

We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse 

of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 

2020). A district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors can independently 

support a decision to deny compassionate release. See United States v. 

Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).

Here, the district court conducted an independent review of the § 

3553(a) factors and determined that Roundtree was not entitled to relief. The 

court cited the nature and circumstances of the offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a)(1); the seriousness of the offense, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(A); and the 

need to protect the public and deter further crimes, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(B)–

(C). The court also provided a detailed explanation of why these factors 

weighed against compassionate release. This included the “boldness and 

coldness” of the offense for which Roundtree was convicted, a concern for 

the safety of his victim, and his 2020 violation in prison for possessing a 

hazardous tool. Roundtree’s disagreement with the balancing of these factors 

is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. 

Because the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors 

provides a sufficient basis for affirmance, we need not consider whether the 

district court erred in determining that Roundtree failed to show 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. The order of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-50309 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2024