Court Opinion

ID: 9555334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 18:02:58.113014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:22.057174
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51101        Document: 00516854589             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51101
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Charles Samson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:04-CR-86-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Charles Samson, federal prisoner # 27347-180, appeals the denial of
   his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. On
   appeal, Samson contends that the district court erred in denying his motion
   because he demonstrated that the following extraordinary and compelling
   circumstances justified compassionate release: (i) nonretroactive changes to
   the sentencing laws would result in a lower sentence if he were sentenced
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51101       Document: 00516854589          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-51101

   today, and (ii) he was diagnosed with Hepatitis-C and suffers from skin
   lesions, which increase his susceptibility of contracting severe COVID-19.
   We do not reach Samson’s argument that purported flaws in the Guidelines
   for methamphetamine-related convictions, taken alongside the rule of lenity,
   constitute an extraordinary and compelling circumstance, because it is raised
   for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432
   n.1 (5th Cir. 2021); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th
   Cir. 1999).
            We review the denial of Samson’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an
   abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
   Cir. 2020). Samson has failed to demonstrate that nonretroactive changes to
   the sentencing laws constitute an extraordinary and compelling circumstance
   insofar as he cannot show that any changes in the law would be applicable to
   him. Additionally, his Hepatitis-C diagnosis was resolved in March 2020, he
   receives treatment for the skin lesions, and he has received multiple doses of
   the COVID-19 vaccine. His generalized fear of contracting COVID-19, in
   light of the resolution of his Hepatitis-C diagnosis, management of other
   conditions, and vaccination status, does not constitute an extraordinary or
   compelling circumstance justifying compassionate release. See Thompson,
   984 F.3d at 435; see United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097, 1100 (5th Cir.
   2022).
            Because Samson fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its
   discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release based on its
   finding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling
   circumstances, we do not reach his argument that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   factors justified relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8
   (5th Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district court’s decision is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          2