Court Opinion

ID: 9940706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 01:00:36.045521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:37.078815
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10807        Document: 00517064156             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10807
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               February 14, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Anthony Ray Williams,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:07-CR-147-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Anthony Ray Williams, federal prisoner # 36832-177, moves for leave
   to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the denial of his 18
   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He is currently
   serving a 314-month sentence for various robbery and firearm convictions.
   The district court determined that Williams failed to show extraordinary and

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10807     Document: 00517064156           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/14/2024

                                    No. 23-10807

   compelling reasons warranting a reduction in sentence and further that the
   18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of granting relief. See
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
          In his brief on appeal, Williams renews his arguments that
   compassionate release is warranted based on the extraordinary and
   compelling circumstances that (i) various changes to the sentencing laws
   would result in a lower sentence if he were sentenced today; and (ii) he has
   been rehabilitated.
          To the extent Williams’s arguments challenge the district court’s
   assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, they amount to no more than a
   disagreement with the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is
   insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss,
   948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Williams fails to identify a
   nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying
   relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider
   his arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See
   United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v.
   United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
   693.
          Williams asks that his case be reassigned to a different district court
   judge. His request is of no moment because he has not raised a nonfrivolous
   issue 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, his IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24
   (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th
   Cir. R. 42.2.

                                         2