Court Opinion

ID: 9382761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 18:00:31.369826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.439845
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50670        Document: 00516691114             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50670
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                                                               March 28, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Robin M. Gatewood,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:05-CR-138-1

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Robin Gatewood, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his 18
   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.                   On appeal,
   Gatewood argues that the district court failed to adequately explain its
   decision denying his motion for a sentence reduction.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50670      Document: 00516691114           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                     No. 22-50670

          We review a district court’s order denying compassionate release for
   an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
   Cir. 2020). A district court may only modify a defendant’s sentence if
   “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18
   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In addition to that determination, the district
   court must consider the applicable factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
   provide specific reasons for its decision.       Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
   However, the amount of explanation needed depends “upon the
   circumstances of the particular case.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.
   Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). As the Supreme Court has guided, “it may be
   sufficient,” in some instances, “that the judge simply relied upon the record,
   while making clear that” the judge also “considered the parties’ arguments
   and [has] taken account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
          We disagree with Gatewood that the district court abused its
   discretion here. Rather, the record reflects that the district court gave due
   consideration to the motion for compassionate release. Indeed, as reflected
   in its order, the district court reviewed Gatewood’s motion, the
   Government’s response, and Gatewood’s reply—each of which pressed
   arguments regarding the § 3553(a) factors. See Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at
   1965. The district court also explicitly stated that it separately considered the
   § 3553(a) factors and the applicable policy statements issued by the
   Sentencing Commission. After review of these relevant arguments, the court
   concluded relief was not warranted. On this record then, we conclude there
   is no basis for a determination that the district court abused its discretion.
   See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94.
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          2