Court Opinion

ID: 9385157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 00:00:23.11832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.282052
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50873         Document: 00516702393             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50873
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     April 5, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Charles Edward Johnson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:07-CR-97-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Charles Johnson, federal prisoner #83808-180, appeals the denial of
   his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce the 365-month sentence im-
   posed for possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of a mixture
   or substance containing cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a public elementary
   school. Johnson sought reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 750
   to the Sentencing Guidelines and in light of his post-sentencing conduct.
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50873      Document: 00516702393           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/05/2023

                                     No. 22-50873

   The district court decided that Johnson was not entitled to early release
   because he posed a serious danger to society, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   sentencing factors did not warrant a reduction. We review for abuse of dis-
   cretion the decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United
   States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
          Johnson contends that the district court violated Concepcion v. United
   States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022), by failing to consider his post-sentencing con-
   duct. He also asserts that the court did not properly evaluate the factors that
   supported the grant of a reduction. Johnson additionally moves for summary
   judgment.
          In Concepcion, the Court addressed § 404(b) of the First Step Act and
   determined that if a prisoner is eligible for relief under that provision because
   he was convicted of one of certain offenses that involve cocaine base, the dis-
   trict court may consider a wide range of factors upon resentencing. Concep-
   tion, 142 S. Ct. at 2396, 2401–05. There is no indication that Concepcion
   broadened the scope of what district courts may consider when ruling on a
   § 3582(c)(2) motion, which, per the express dictates of Congress, may be
   granted only if a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements
   of the Sentencing Commission. See id. at 2401–05; § 3582(c)(2).
          In any event, Johnson has not shown that the district court abused its
   discretion. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 718. The court did not have to con-
   sider his rehabilitative conduct in determining whether a reduction was mer-
   ited. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 & n.10 (5th Cir. 2009).
   The record otherwise suggests that the court gave due consideration to the
   § 3582(c)(2) motion—in which Johnson contended that he was entitled to an
   early release based on his post-sentencing conduct—as well as the applicable
   § 3553(a) factors. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 718; Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. To
   the extent that Johnson disagrees with the weight the court gave to certain

                                              2
Case: 22-50873     Document: 00516702393           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/05/2023

                                    No. 22-50873

   factors, he may not show that the court abused its discretion on that basis.
   See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672–73.
         Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The motion for sum-
   mary judgment is DENIED.

                                             3