Court Opinion

ID: 9407882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 18:00:48.939347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.648586
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40658        Document: 00516814470             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023

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

                                      No. 22-40658
                                                                              FILED
                                                                          July 10, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jordan Andrew Davidson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:07-CR-758-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Jordan Andrew Davidson, federal prisoner # 79430-179, appeals the
   district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
   compassionate release. He contends that he established extraordinary and
   compelling reasons for release because, pursuant to United States v. Taylor,
   142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), his attempted murder conviction no longer qualifies

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40658      Document: 00516814470          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                    No. 22-40658

   as a crime of violence supporting his conviction for using a firearm during and
   in relation to a crime of violence. In addition, he asserts that if he had been
   sentenced after imposition of the First Step Act, he could have received the
   benefit of lower mandatory minimum sentences and the sentencing court
   could have taken into account the mandatory minimum sentence for his
   firearm offense in crafting an appropriate sentence for the attempted murder;
   he acknowledges that the First Step Act is not retroactively applicable, but
   he maintains that the court can take its amendments into account in
   determining whether compassionate release is appropriate.              Finally,
   Davidson argues that the district court gave disproportionate weight to the
   circumstances surrounding his offense and his prison disciplinary record,
   failed to give controlling weight to his post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts,
   and failed to take into account unwarranted sentencing disparities between
   Davidson and similarly situated offenders sentenced under the First Step
   Act.
          We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948
   F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020).         The district court conducted an
   independent review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluded that
   Davidson was not entitled to relief. Davidson has not shown that the district
   court abused its discretion in this conclusion. See id. at 693; see also
   Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct 2389, 2404-05 (2022). Because the
   district court’s independent § 3553(a) analysis supports the dismissal, it is
   unnecessary to consider Davidson’s arguments challenging the district
   court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling
   reasons warranting relief. 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). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              2