Court Opinion

ID: 9918463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 01:00:43.909248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.361369
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30411        Document: 00517032310             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                January 12, 2024
                                      No. 23-30411
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Glenn Metz,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:92-CR-469-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Glenn Metz, federal prisoner # 28118-048, appeals the denial of his
   motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).      Metz is currently serving a life sentence after his
   convictions for conducting a continuing criminal enterprise, possession with
   intent to distribute cocaine, and money laundering. In ruling on his motion,

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30411       Document: 00517032310          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 23-30411

   the district court assumed that Metz had demonstrated that extraordinary
   and compelling circumstances existed but denied relief after weighing the 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. On appeal, Metz argues that the district court erred
   in applying and weighing the § 3553(a) factors because its analysis
   incorporated the same reasons that it had previously given in denying Metz’s
   2021 motion for compassionate release.             Metz contends that, by
   incorporating its 2021 analysis into its order denying his extant motion, the
   district court failed to consider his changed factual circumstances, which
   included his “serious health issues that had developed since his” 2021
   motion and his “voluminous evidence of rehabilitation.”
          We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse
   of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
   As a preliminary matter, though Metz raises his health conditions throughout
   his discussion of the § 3553(a) factors, he presents no explicit argument that
   his changed health conditions have any relevance to the district court’s
   consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.          Additionally, Metz has not
   demonstrated any drastic change in his circumstances from 2021 to 2023, as
   regards his rehabilitation.     Indeed, during the litigation of his 2021
   compassionate release motion, he made arguments regarding his
   rehabilitation that were similar to the ones that he made in his 2023 motion,
   even if he submitted more evidence—in the form of letters of support from
   Bureau of Prison staff members, fellow inmates, family members, and his
   case worker—in support of his 2023 motion to demonstrate his
   rehabilitation.
          Moreover, contrary to his claim that the district court ignored his
   evidence of rehabilitation, the district court specifically cited and referenced
   his letters of support and rehabilitation arguments. Additionally, the court
   recognized that Metz had sought to better himself in prison, had not
   committed violent acts in prison, and had health conditions that made future

                                          2
Case: 23-30411      Document: 00517032310           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 23-30411

   violent conduct unlikely. The court was not required to explicitly address
   each of Metz’s rehabilitation arguments and each of the attendant letters of
   support. See Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 502 (2022); United
   States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020). Based on the foregoing,
   we can infer that the district court fully considered the rehabilitation issue.
   See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009).
          The district court’s reasoned order demonstrates that it adequately
   considered Metz’s arguments and determined that consideration of the
   § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief. See Concepcion, 597 U.S. at
   502.   Metz’s arguments regarding the § 3553(a) factors amount to a
   disagreement with the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors; his
   disagreement does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
          Metz asks that his case be reassigned to a different district court judge.
   His request is of no moment because he has not shown that the district court
   abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. See
   Johnson v. Harris Cnty., 83 F.4th 941, 947 (5th Cir. 2023).
          Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          3