Court Opinion

ID: 9890700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-14 00:00:30.762259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:50.474595
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30155        Document: 00516931410             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-30155
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               October 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Robert E. Robinson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 3:18-CR-228-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Robert E. Robinson, federal prisoner # 20897-035, appeals the denial
   of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He
   argues that the district court erred by ruling that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   factors weighed against granting compassionate release. Specifically, he
   contends that the district court failed to consider his circumstances as a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30155      Document: 00516931410            Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/13/2023

                                     No. 23-30155

   whole, specifically asserting that the court failed to consider letters from
   community members showing that he participated in nonprofit organizations
   and also failed to consider his low PATTERN score. Robinson also argues
   that the district court abused its discretion by finding that he did not establish
   extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release
   under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
          We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for an
   abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
   Cir. 2020). The district court denied Robinson’s motion on the ground that
   he was not entitled to compassionate release because the § 3553(a) factors
   did not weigh in his favor. Specifically, the district court found that Robinson
   committed a serious offense, had numerous prior drug convictions, and was
   likely to recidivate and pose a danger to the public. The district further found
   that releasing Robinson would not reflect the seriousness of his offense,
   afford adequate deterrence to his future criminal conduct, or protect the
   public. See § 3553(a).
          Robinson’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the
   sentencing factors is not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district court did not abuse its
   discretion when it found that the § 3553(a) factors did not support
   Robinson’s early release, we need not consider his challenge to the district
   court’s finding that he did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons
   warranting compassionate release.           See § 3582(c)(1)(A).    Accordingly,
   Robinson has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in
   denying his motion for compassionate release. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
   693-94. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           2