Court Opinion

ID: 9411815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 00:01:06.11291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:14.269902
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51062         Document: 00516837172             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                      July 27, 2023
                                        No. 21-51062
                                      ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Joshua Bell,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:09-CR-179-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          In 2009, Joshua Bell pled guilty to aiding and abetting attempted bank
   robbery (count 1), conspiracy to commit bank robbery (count 2), and aiding
   and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence (count 3). He was
   sentenced to 71 months of imprisonment on count 1, 60 months of imprison-
   ment on count 2 to run concurrently, and 240 months of imprisonment on
   count 3 to run consecutively to the sentences for counts 1 and 2. He was also

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51062      Document: 00516837172            Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                      No. 21-51062

   sentenced to five years of supervised release on counts 1 and 3 and three years
   of supervised release on count 2, to run concurrently.
          In August 2021, Bell filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to
   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).        He asserted that the following allegedly
   extraordinary and compelling reasons supported a sentence reduction: his
   young age of 20 years old at the time of the offense, his lack of a criminal
   history, the amount of time that he had already served on his sentence, his
   efforts toward rehabilitation, his improved conduct while in prison, “his
   sincere remorse and contrition,” the unwarranted disparity between his
   sentence and the sentences of other similar or more culpable defendants who
   had received sentence reductions, and the harsh prison conditions resulting
   from the COVID-19 pandemic.            Bell also believed that the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) factors weighed in his favor. The district court ordered the
   Government to respond to Bell’s motion.
          In response, the Government contended Bell had not identified any
   reason that the court, informed by the nonbinding commentary to United
   States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13, should recognize as extraordinary and
   compelling. Based on the nature of Bell’s offenses and his lengthy prison
   disciplinary record, the Government also asserted that Bell failed to show he
   was not a danger to the community, as discussed in § 1B1.13(2). According
   to the Government, Bell also failed to show that the § 3553(a) factors weighed
   in his favor in view of the nature of his offenses, his prison disciplinary record,
   his previous drug use, and his healthy physical condition.
          The district court denied Bell’s motion. The district court’s order
   states that the motion and the Government’s response were before the court
   and that the court had considered “the pleadings in this case, the applicable
   factors provided in . . . § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued
   by the Sentencing Commission.”

                                           2
Case: 21-51062      Document: 00516837172           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                    No. 21-51062

          Bell filed a timely notice of appeal, asserting that the district court
   abused its discretion by failing adequately to explain its decision denying his
   motion for compassionate release. According to Bell, the court’s blanket
   denial failed to reference the specific § 3553(a) factors on which the court
   relied, and he also maintains that the § 3553(a) factors in fact weigh in his
   favor. Finally, he asserts the district court abused its discretion in denying
   his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion because the court erroneously believed that
   § 1B1.13 was binding and because the court ruled on his motion before he was
   able to reply to the Government’s response. Bell’s first argument carries the
   day.
          As we recently explained in United States v. McMaryion,1 “[i]n similar
   circumstances,” where the district court articulated its reasoning for denying
   a motion for compassionate release via a perfunctory sentence referencing
   the parties’ filings, the § 3553(a) factors, and the Sentencing Commission’s
   policy statements, “we have remanded ‘for the district court to explain its
   reasons for denial.’” No. 21-50450, 2023 WL 4118015, at *2 (5th Cir. June
   22, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Guzman, No. 20-51001,
   2022 WL 17538880, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) (per curiam)). We follow
   the same course here and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the
   district court to explain its reasoning.        We otherwise retain appellate
   jurisdiction.
                                              VACATED and REMANDED.

          _____________________
          1
            McMaryion involved an identical order denying a defendant’s motion for
   compassionate release, also authored by the same district judge.

                                         3