# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 30244 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jesse L. Cage,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:98

- CR

- 194

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Jesse L. Cage, federal prisoner # 22766

- 034, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He correctly argues that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and its commentary are not binding on a prisoner’s own motion for compassionate release. See United States v.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 1, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30244 Document: 00516530260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022No. 22

- 30244

2 Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388, 392

- 93 (5th Cir. 2021). He contends that his motion was supported by the import of A mendment 798 to the Guidelines , his age, his time spent in prison, the nature of his offense, his r ehabilitative efforts, his contention that his most recent disciplinary case was a result of circumstances due to COVID

- 19, and his contention that he poses no danger to the community. He has abandoned, by failing to brief, any challenge to the district c ourt’s determinations that he should not receive § 3582(c)(1)(A) relief based upon his medical condition s or his increased risk for COVID

- 19. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993)

. We review the denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). T here is no indication that the district court impermissibly treat ed § 1B1.13 as binding. See Shkambi , 993 F.3d at 392

- 93. E ven if the district court legally erred in its consideration of § 1B1.13, the denial of the motion may be affirmed because the district court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors can independently support the judgment

. See United States v. Jackson , 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States , 11 F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693

- 94

. T he district court expressly found that it had the discretion to consider Amendment 798 as an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce the sentence. It did not exercise that discretion , however, given its other stated reasons for denying the motion. In denying the motion, t he district court specifically considered Cage’s age, his time in prison, the nature of his offense, his rehabilitative efforts, his criminal history, his prison disciplinary history , and his available support system upon release

. Cage’s mere disagreement with the district court ’ s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors does not warrant reversal

. See Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 694. The district court’s denial of Cage’s motion for compassionate release is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-30244 Document: 00516530260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022