United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30364

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

James Gaharan, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CR-136-1 

______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Gaharan, federal prisoner # 21078-035, appeals the denials of 

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

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and his motion for reconsideration. We review each of 

those denials for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30364 Document: 00516903462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 22-30364

2

F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567, 570 

(5th Cir. 2019). 

The district court denied Gaharan compassionate release because, 

inter alia, it determined that reducing his 97-month sentence for possession 

of child pornography would neither adequately deter him from criminal 

conduct nor reflect the seriousness of his offense. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). Although Gaharan relies on United States v. Sauseda, 

No. 21-50210, 2022 WL 989371 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022), to support his 

contention that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation

for denying him compassionate release, Sauseda is readily distinguishable; in 

that case, unlike this one, the judge who denied the § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion 

was not the same judge who sentenced the movant, the Government had not 

filed any response to the motion, and the district court did not cite any 

specific § 3553(a) factors in support of its denial order. Sauseda, 2022 WL 

989371, 1-3. The district court in the instant case, which denied relief after 

summarizing relevant parts of the record and making clear that it had 

considered the parties’ arguments, was not required to provide a more 

thorough explanation. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 

1965 (2018) (“In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate 

review that the judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that 

he or she has considered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the 

§ 3553(a) factors.”).

Contrary to Gaharan’s contentions, the Government expressly argued 

that his sexual abuse of his minor student supported the denial of 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief based upon the § 3553(a) factors. In any event, any 

Government failure to address those factors would not have precluded the 

district from considering them. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-

62 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case: 22-30364 Document: 00516903462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 22-30364

3

Gaharan raised in his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) pleadings his instant 

arguments that he is unlikely to recidivate in light of his post-sentencing 

conduct and his PATTERN score; the district court, which indicated that it 

had considered his pleadings, was not required to accept his arguments or 

provide a point-by-point rebuttal of them. See Concepcion v. United States, 

142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022). Although Gaharan contends that his is a 

non-contact offense and, therefore, not sufficiently serious to warrant the 

denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, his assertion is belied by 

unchallenged facts contained in the presentence report and his receipt, 

without objection, of an offense-level increase for engaging in a pattern of 

activity involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor student. See 

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5). 

In short, Gaharan’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of 

the § 3553(a) factors does not establish that the district court abused its 

discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694; Trevino, 944 F.3d at 570. We 

need not consider his contention that the district court erred in finding that 

he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See 

Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30364 Document: 00516903462 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023