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

No. 20

- 60645 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Jimmie Terrell Harrison,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 98

- 1

Before **Barksdale, Graves,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Jimmie Terrell Harrison, federal prisoner # 20912

- 043 , pleaded guilty to possession, with intent to distribute, more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced

to , inter alia , 240

- months’ imprisonment , a term below the advisory

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 May 25, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60645 Document: 00515875239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2021No. 20

- 60645

2 Sentencing Guidelines range . Harrison , proceeding pro se , challenges the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction (seeking compassionate release) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (A) , asserting the
court failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. ( To the extent Harrison claims he is being subjected to a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that COVID

- 19 has stopped all pr ogramming, vocational training, other needed treatment, and employment within the prison, we need not reach these claims , because the

court properly disposed of the sentence

- reduction motion after considering the § 3553(a) factors. )

A district court’s deny ing a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 69 3 (5th Cir. 2020) . A district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence, after considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction”

. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i)

. Despite Harrison’s assertions to the contrary, the court properly
considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. It explicitly considered : the seriousness of Harrison’s offense; his criminal history, includ ing a prior felony conviction for the sale of a controlled substance; the need to promote respect for the law; the need to provide just punishment; and the need for specific and general det errence

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) , ( 2). Moreover,
the court noted : Harrison received a below

- G uidelines sentence ; he had
served less than ten percent of his sentence ; and he was in possession of a dangerous firearm at the time of his arrest. Because the court did not rely on an impermissible , or fail to consider a relevant , sentencing factor, it did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Jones , 980 F.3d 1098, 1114 (6th Cir. 2020).

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-60645 Document: 00515875239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2021