Court Opinion

ID: 9951411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:36.523637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:11.513096
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40288           Document: 63-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

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

                                  ____________                                    FILED
                                                                             March 15, 2024
                                   No. 23-40288                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                 ____________

United States of America,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Freddie Rucker,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:16-CR-19-1
                  ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Freddie Rucker, federal prisoner # 20566-479, appeals the denial of
his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On
appeal, Rucker argues that the district court failed to provide sufficient
reasons for denying his motion. He also requests permission to file an out-
of-time reply brief, which is GRANTED.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40288         Document: 63-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                  No. 23-40288

       We disagree with Rucker that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). The district court stated that it had considered Rucker’s
arguments and the applicable policy statements, and determined that the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant relief. Contrary to
Rucker’s argument, the district court was not obligated to provide further
reasoning in support of its denial of his motion. See Chavez-Meza v. United
States, 585 U.S. 109, 115-16 (2018); United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184,
188 (5th Cir. 2023). Additionally, we do not consider Rucker’s argument,
raised for the first time on appeal, that he is entitled to relief due to a recent
amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d
431, 432 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021).
       Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94; United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093
n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                        2