Court Opinion

ID: 9839273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 18:00:36.135762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.585854
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-51011       Document: 00516891432             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023

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

                                    ____________                               FILED
                                                                      September 12, 2023
                                      No. 20-51011                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                               Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Steve Maurice Tyler,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:16-CR-128-5
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Steve Tyler pled guilty in 2016 to conspiracy to possess
   280 grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute. The district
   court (Junell, J.) sentenced him to a statutory minimum 240-months of
   imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2010).

          _____________________
          *
              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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 20-51011      Document: 00516891432           Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                     No. 20-51011

          Tyler moved for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A). The government filed a response, and the district court
   (Counts, J.) denied the motion as follows: “After considering the applicable
   factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements
   issued by the Sentencing Commission, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
   Motions [sic] on its merits.”        Tyler then filed a timely motion for
   reconsideration, which the court likewise denied.
          Tyler now appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release.
   We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. United States
   v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Tyler argues that the district court erred in failing to assess whether
   his allegations established “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
   warranting a reduction in his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He
   also asserts that the district court erroneously considered U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
   to be binding.       These contentions lack merit, as the district court’s
   assessment of the § 3553(a) factors furnished an independent and adequate
   basis for denying Tyler’s motion. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184,
   188 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Tyler additionally argues that the district court erred by perfunctorily
   denying his motion.      Though the government presented overwhelming
   reasons as to why the § 3553(a) factors do not support a reduced prison term,
   the district court did not explicitly adopt those arguments. And this court
   has, in similar circumstances, “remanded for the district court to explain its
   reasons for denial.” United States v. McMaryion, 2023 WL 4118015, at *2
   (5th Cir. June 22, 2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We
   follow suit. “As we typically do in such situations, we will retain appellate
   jurisdiction.” Id.
          AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED.

                                              2