United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60555

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cloist Jimison, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:08-CR-11-1

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cloist Jimison, Jr., federal prisoner # 09535-043, was sentenced in 

December 2019 to 18 months of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised 

release; the sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the 60-month term 

of imprisonment imposed in a separate criminal case, also in the Southern 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

June 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60555 Document: 00515909676 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
No. 20-60555

2

District of Mississippi. The December 2019 revocation was Jimison’s third 

revocation of supervised release since his 2008 conviction for possession of 

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

On appeal, Jimison challenges the district court’s denial of his motion 

for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as 

amended by the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 

132 Stat. 5194. He argues that the district court was not limited by the 

examples set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (p.s.) and its commentary of what 

constitutes extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and that the district 

court erred by failing to recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes 

an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting compassionate release. 

He further argues that his family’s financial situation, which he notes may 

not be extraordinary and compelling by itself, is complicated by the economic 

hardship caused by the pandemic. Jimison also has filed a motion seeking 

release to home confinement due to COVID-19, although he cites no 

authority, statutory or otherwise, by which an appellate court may reduce a 

federal prisoner’s sentence.

We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion 

for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Although district courts are

not constrained by § 1B1.13 and its commentary when addressing such a 

motion, see United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021), 

the district court did not treat § 1B1.13 as dispositive of what factors can 

constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. 

Rather, the district court acknowledged that even if courts could consider 

reasons other than those expressly listed in the commentary to § 1B1.13, 

Jimison failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a 

sentence reduction, and he failed to show that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

weighed in favor of his early release.

Case: 20-60555 Document: 00515909676 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
No. 20-60555

3

Because the record does not reflect that the district court based its 

decision to deny Jimison’s motion “on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence” before it, Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted), the district court’s order is 

AFFIRMED. The motion for release to home confinement is DENIED.

Case: 20-60555 Document: 00515909676 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2021