Court Opinion

ID: 9911735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 19:00:45.76278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:20.014050
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10874       Document: 00517008689             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-10874
                                   Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                   ____________                             December 20, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                        Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Lawrence Alan Haberman,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:07-CR-188-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Lawrence Alan Haberman, federal prisoner # 36897-177, appeals the
   district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to
   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Haberman contends that the district court erred
   in determining that compassionate release is limited to defendants with

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-10874      Document: 00517008689           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/20/2023

                                     No. 23-10874

   serious medical issues; the district court erred in finding that the seriousness
   of his offense rendered him ineligible for compassionate release; the district
   court did not address the relevant § 3553(a) factors or his individualized
   circumstances; and the applicable § 3553(a) factors and other extraordinary
   and compelling reasons weigh in favor of granting him compassionate release.
          We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release
   for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
   Cir. 2020). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error
   of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Despite Haberman’s assertions to the contrary, the district court
   properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and found that they
   weighed against granting compassionate release. The district court explicitly
   considered the nature and circumstances of his offense; his criminal history;
   the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of his offense, to promote
   respect for the law, and to provide just punishment; and the need for the
   sentence to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. Haberman
   demonstrates no more than personal disagreement with the district court’s
   balancing of sentencing factors, which is insufficient to establish an abuse of
   the court’s discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
          We need not consider Haberman’s contentions regarding whether the
   district court erred in determining that he failed to show extraordinary and
   compelling reasons warranting relief because the district court did not abuse
   its discretion in its alternative holding that relief was not warranted under the
   § 3553(a) factors.   See United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th
   Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2