Court Opinion

ID: 9896908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:00:44.585036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.639536
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51062         Document: 00516966710             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                  November 14, 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:*
          Joshua Bell appealed the district court’s order entered October 11,
   2021, denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A). Bell contended that the district court erred by failing to
   provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for denying his motion.
          Upon initial consideration of Bell’s appeal, we agreed and remanded
   for the limited purpose of having the district court clarify its reasons for

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51062      Document: 00516966710          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/14/2023

                                    No. 21-51062

   denying Bell’s motion. United States v. Bell, No. 21-51062, 2023 WL 4836667
   (5th Cir. July 27, 2023) (per curiam). We reasoned that we had remanded
   similar cases where the district court had “articulated its reasoning for
   denying a motion for compassionate release via a perfunctory sentence
   referencing the parties’ filings, the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, and the
   Sentencing Commission’s policy statements.” Id. at *2.
          Bell’s underlying motion seeks a reduction of his sentence to “time
   served, or in the alternative, . . . to a term the Court deems appropriate.” In
   its order issued on remand, the district court expanded on its reasons for
   denying the motion, emphasizing the serious nature of Bell’s crime,
   including Bell’s detailed planning of the robbery and the fact that a guard
   “suffered multiple gunshot wounds . . . causing permanent damage to his left
   foot and the right side of his chest.” Furthermore, the district court found
   that “Bell has been far from the model prisoner” since his sentencing. It
   noted that Bell “had been sanctioned eleven times while serving his sentence:
   three times for assault, three times for fighting another person, three times
   for possessing a dangerous weapon, once for being in an unauthorized area,
   and once for tattooing or self-mutilation.” Finally, the district court found
   that Bell was healthy and “raise[d] no physical or medical condition for the
   Court to consider.”
          Applying the § 3553(a) factors to those facts, the district court
   determined that a reduction of Bell’s sentence “would not reflect the
   seriousness of his offense, would not promote respect for the law, would not
   provide just punishment for the offense, would not adequately deter criminal
   conduct, and would not protect the public from further crimes.” See
   § 3553(a)(1)–(2).
          We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate
   release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433

                                         2
Case: 21-51062         Document: 00516966710                Page: 3       Date Filed: 11/14/2023

                                           No. 21-51062

   (5th Cir. 2021). “[A] prisoner seeking compassionate release must overcome
   three hurdles.” United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1089 (5th Cir. 2022).
   “First, ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ must justify the reduction of
   his sentence.” Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)).1 “Second, the reduction
   must be ‘consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
   Sentencing Commission.’” Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). And third, “the
   prisoner must persuade the district court that his early release would be
   consistent with the sentencing factors in . . . § 3553(a).” Id. “The district
   court has discretion to deny compassionate release if the Section 3553(a)
   factors counsel against a reduction.” Id. (quoting Ward v. United States, 11
   F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021)).
           Assuming arguendo Bell clears the first two hurdles, he fails to clear
   the third.2 The district court considered the specific facts of Bell’s crimes
   and his behavior while in prison and determined that the § 3553(a) factors
   counseled against a reduction in Bell’s sentence. Based on those findings,
   Bell has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
   motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (noting that “we give deference to the district court’s decision” because it

           _____________________
           1
             Bell contends the district court erred by finding that the policy statements and
   commentary in United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13 were binding as to what
   constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release. The district court made
   no such finding in its original order or its order on remand. Moreover, though Bell is correct
   that § 1B1.13 “does not bind a district court when considering a prisoner’s motion for
   compassionate release[,] . . . [it] may inform the district court’s analysis.” Jackson, 27
   F.4th at 1090 (cleaned up).
           2
             The district court did not expressly discuss whether extraordinary and compelling
   reasons justified Bell’s release or whether a reduction would be consistent with applicable
   policy statements. But it did note Bell’s young age and overall good health in denying the
   motion. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1 (suggesting that extraordinary and compelling
   reasons for release exist if the prisoner is suffering from a serious medical condition or based
   on his advanced age).

                                                  3
Case: 21-51062      Document: 00516966710          Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/14/2023

                                    No. 21-51062

   “is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a)
   in the individual case”).
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                         4