United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-60962 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Marcos Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 3:14-CR-117-4 

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Marcos Jones, federal prisoner # 18114-043, is serving a 160-month 

term of term of imprisonment for a methamphetamine conspiracy conviction 

and a concurrent 120-month sentence of imprisonment for a conviction of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appeals the district court’s denial 

*

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

September 23, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60962 Document: 00516027177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
No. 20-60962 

2 

of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

Generally, a district court is prohibited from modifying a defendant’s 

sentence after it has been imposed. United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346, 348 

(5th Cir. 2014). Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), however, on the motion of either 

the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) director or a prisoner, a district court may 

reduce a prisoner’s sentence if, after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant such a reduction” and “that such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion 

for compassionate release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Jones argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his 

motion for compassionate release because the district court failed to give 

enough weight to his medical problems and the conditions at his prison unit 

and instead placed too much weight on the sentencing factors of § 3553(a). 

Jones notes that numerous people at his prison unit had contracted COVID19, and he asserts that his health problems, particularly his asthma, place him 

at increased risk of suffering severe consequences from COVID-19. In 

addition to emphasizing his underlying health problems, Jones asserts that 

statistics show that his race places him at a higher risk of hospitalization and 

other complications from the virus. Jones also argues that the district court’s 

concern over creating sentencing disparities by reducing his sentence of 

imprisonment was unwarranted given his risk of death from COVID-19; he 

seems to assert that his death would create a type of sentencing disparity. 

Because Jones moved for compassionate release, the district court was 

“bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in 

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). Our 

Case: 20-60962 Document: 00516027177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
No. 20-60962 

3 

review shows that the district court permissibly determined that the 

§ 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release; it 

explicitly considered the nature and circumstances of Jones’s offense, the 

seriousness of the offense, Jones’s history and characteristics, and whether a 

sentence reduction would promote respect for the law, provide just 

punishment, protect the public from further crimes, and avoid unwarranted 

sentencing disparities. See § 3553(a)(1)(2), (6). Because the district court 

did not, in its § 3553(a) analysis, “base its decision on an error of law or a 

clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence,” it did not abuse its discretion 

in denying Jones’s motion for compassionate release. See Chambliss, 948 

F.3d at 694. 

Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-60962 Document: 00516027177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/23/2021