United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 20-30205

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Byron Neal, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-425-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Byron Neal, federal prisoner # 30456-034, is serving concurrent 

sentences of 360 months of imprisonment and 240 months of imprisonment, 

respectively, which were imposed on his convictions of drug offenses 

involving cocaine base. Neal has appealed from an order of the district court 

denying motions to reduce his sentence under Section 404 of the First Step 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 20, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30205 Document: 00516617607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023
No. 20-30205

2

Act of 2018, and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, because Neal raises no 

issues related to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, he has 

abandoned any challenge to the denial of that motion. See United States 

v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Focusing instead on the district court’s denial of his motion under 

Section 404 of the First Step Act, Neal argues that the denial of his motion 

results in a substantively unreasonable sentence. This contention is 

foreclosed in light of United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 480 (5th Cir. 

2020), which held that “the substantive reasonableness standard does not 

apply” to denials of a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. 

Neal also contends that the district court erred by failing to adequately 

consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by failing to 

provide a sufficient explanation of its denial of his Section 404 motion for a 

reduction in his sentence of imprisonment. Our review of the district court’s 

decision is deferential and “should not be overly searching.” Concepcion v. 

United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022). 

“[T]he First Step Act [does not] require a district court to make a 

point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is required is for 

a district court to demonstrate that it has considered the arguments before 

it.” Id. at 2405. “[A] district court is not required to be persuaded by every

argument parties make, and it may, in its discretion, dismiss arguments that 

it does not find compelling without a detailed explanation. Nor is a district 

court required to articulate anything more than a brief statement of reasons.” 

Id. at 2404.

Here, the district court correctly noted that it could consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 322 n.8 (5th 

Cir. 2019). The record reflects that the district court gave due consideration 

to the arguments before it, including arguments pertinent to the § 3553(a) 

Case: 20-30205 Document: 00516617607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2023
No. 20-30205

3

sentencing factors. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404-05; Batiste, 980 F.3d 

at 479. Further, the district court adequately explained its reasons for 

refusing to exercise its discretion to reduce Neal’s sentence, see Concepcion, 

142 S. Ct. at 2404-05, noting Neal’s role in a murder conspiracy. 

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-30205 Document: 00516617607 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2023