United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-20006

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Earnest Gibson, IV, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-600-2

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Earnest Gibson, IV, federal prisoner # 24390-379, appeals the denial 

of his third motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A). Under this statute, a district court may reduce a defendant’s 

term of imprisonment if, after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a), 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20006 Document: 00516496110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2022
No. 22-20006

2

it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 

reduction” and “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). As 

he had already done in two prior motions, Gibson contended that the greater 

risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 caused by several of his 

underlying medical conditions, specifically obesity, diabetes, and 

hypertension, was an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting early 

release. Adopting the reasoning contained in its denial of Gibson’s previous 

motion for compassionate release, the district court denied the motion. 

We review the denial of a motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for an 

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

2020). A district court abuses its discretion when it “bases its decision on an 

error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, the district court was within its discretion in determining that 

Gibson’s medical conditions were not “extraordinary or compelling 

reasons” for reducing his sentence. As noted by the district court, large 

percentages of the population suffer from the same conditions as Gibson, 

making it difficult to say that his case is “extraordinary.” See United States v. 

Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021)

(holding that, because nearly half the population suffered from hypertension 

and approximately twelve percent suffered from high cholesterol, the district 

court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release to a defendant 

with those conditions). 

Although some courts have, on occasion, granted compassionate 

release where the defendant demonstrated that they were at an increased risk 

of suffering severe illness should they contract COVID-19, they have “largely 

done so for defendants who had already served the lion’s share of their 

Case: 22-20006 Document: 00516496110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2022
No. 22-20006

3

sentences.” Id at 434. In contrast, Gibson has served less than fifty percent 

of his twenty-year sentence. Accordingly, Gibson has failed to show that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate 

release. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-20006 Document: 00516496110 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/04/2022