Court Opinion

ID: 9905740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:38.663814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.317898
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30278         Document: 00516983406             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                          November 29, 2023
                                       No. 23-30278
                                     Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jeffrey Scott Holder,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:18-CR-332-3
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jeffrey Scott Holder, federal prisoner # 20875-035, appeals the denial
   of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
   Holder argues that the district court abused its discretion in determining that
   the facts of his case did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons
   warranting relief. He further contends that his postsentencing rehabilitation

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30278      Document: 00516983406          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                    No. 23-30278

   weighed in favor of a sentencing reduction under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   factors.
          The record reflects that the district court considered Holder’s
   arguments when concluding that compassionate release was not warranted
   based on extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See Concepcion v.
   United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). Before this court, Holder fails
   to identify any medical conditions and, although he contends that he suffers
   from an anxiety disorder, he makes no assertion that his ability to care for
   himself while incarcerated is substantially impaired. See United States v.
   Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir. 2021). Further, the district court
   properly considered Holder’s prior recovery from COVID-19 and
   vaccination status when determining that extraordinary and compelling
   circumstances did not exist. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097,
   1099-1101 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2022). Lastly, the district court was not required
   to grant Holder’s motion on account of his rehabilitation efforts and, he fails
   to offer any evidence demonstrating that there is no other family member
   available to assist in caring for his daughter. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at
   2404-05; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.3).
          Holder has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion
   in denying his motion for compassionate release on the basis that
   extraordinary and compelling reasons did not warrant relief. See United
   States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Similarly, Holder fails
   to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
   based on a balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. His argument that his
   rehabilitation efforts weighed in favor of a reduction amounts to a mere
   disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. See
   id. at 694. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         2