Court Opinion

ID: 9375342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:53.244598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.859184
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10658         Document: 00516654499            Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/23/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10658
                                    Summary Calendar                                FILED
                                                                             February 23, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                        Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Craig Alexander,

                                                                Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:01-CR-60-3

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Craig Alexander, federal prisoner # 10855-035, appeals the extent of
   the sentence reduction the district court granted under section 404 of the
   First Step Act of 2018. Alexander argues that the district court abused its
   discretion and violated his right to due process by denying his motion without

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10658      Document: 00516654499          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                    No. 22-10658

   giving him the opportunity to reply to the Government’s response regarding
   his post-sentencing conduct.
          We review a district court’s decision under section 404 of the First
   Step Act for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Perez, 27 F.4th 1101,
   1103 (5th Cir. 2022). Even assuming the district court abused its discretion
   by denying Alexander the opportunity to respond, any error by the district
   court was harmless because Alexander was already on notice that such
   information might be presented to the court based on the Government’s
   previous response to a prior 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion; because his
   motion alluded to his prison disciplinary record, albeit by noting his lack of
   any misconduct for the previous eight years; because of his lack of any new
   misconduct since well before the Government’s previous response; because
   the Government remarked favorably regarding this lack of recent
   misconduct; and because his brief makes no argument as to how he was
   harmed by the alleged error, beyond his unsupported assertion that the
   violation of his due process rights alone constituted sufficient harm. See
   United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1999).
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2