Court Opinion

ID: 9910990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 01:00:34.676164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:24.609511
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10442         Document: 00517005121             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10442
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                             December 18, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   David Burney,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-304-3
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          David Burney, federal prisoner # 39054-177, appeals the denial of his
   motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review the denial of such a motion for abuse of
   discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 23-10442      Document: 00517005121            Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/18/2023

                                      No. 23-10442

          Burney argues that the district court erred in determining that a
   sentence reduction was not warranted based on the court’s consideration of
   the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that he is not
   violent and that he is not a threat to public safety. He asserts that his good
   prison record, low risk of recidivism, and post-sentencing rehabilitative
   efforts should be considered in the Section 3553(a) analysis. Burney also
   argues that his health and medical needs can be better handled if he is
   released to home confinement.
          In determining that the Section 3553(a) factors did not weigh in
   Burney’s favor, the district court considered “all the relevant information”
   in the record. The district court specifically took into account the facts and
   circumstances of Burney’s drug conspiracy offense, noting that firearms and
   imported methamphetamine were involved, and that Burney committed the
   offense while on supervised release. It determined that Burney had only
   served 25 percent of his sentence and that Burney had been granted a
   downward departure at his original sentencing. Burney’s arguments amount
   to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the sentencing
   factors, which does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
          Burney also mounts an attack on the factual underpinnings of the
   district court’s Section 3553(a) analysis. However, contrary to Burney’s
   contentions, he was on supervised release when he committed his drug
   conspiracy offense, as the district court correctly found. Further, Burney’s
   allegation that he had actually served 28.9 percent of his sentence, rather than
   25 percent as stated by the district court, is not supported by the present
   record. Burney fails to show a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence
   by the district court. See id. at 693.
          Finally, Burney argues that the district court erred by basing the denial
   of compassionate release on facts set forth in the Presentence Report that he

                                            2
Case: 23-10442     Document: 00517005121           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/18/2023

                                    No. 23-10442

   did not admit. Caselaw regarding motions for sentence reductions based on
   retroactive Guidelines amendments, which is instructive in the
   compassionate release context, see Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693, supports that
   the district court did not err in considering the Presentence Report’s factual
   statements. For example, the Supreme Court held that proceedings under
   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to have
   essential facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Dillon v. United
   States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010). Burney fails to demonstrate an abuse of
   discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
          Because we have determined that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion in concluding that the Section 3553(a) factors weighed against a
   reduction in Burney’s sentence, we need not consider Burney’s assertion
   that the district court erred in determining that he failed to establish
   extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. See United
   States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3