Court Opinion

ID: 9366277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:01:01.43114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.120519
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6136     Document: 010110804091         Date Filed: 01/26/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 26, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                        No. 22-6136
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:08-CR-00166-D-1)
  ANTONIO DJUAN THOMPSON,                                   (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Defendant Antonio Djuan Thompson, a federal prisoner appearing pro se,

 appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release

 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28

 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s decision.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-6136    Document: 010110804091        Date Filed: 01/26/2023     Page: 2

                                            I

       In November 2008, Thompson was convicted following a bench trial of one

 count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18

 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of 18

 U.S.C. § 844(a). At sentencing, the district court concluded that Thompson was

 subject to an enhanced sentencing range under the Armed Career Criminal Act

 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), due to his prior Oklahoma state court conviction for

 assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and two prior Oklahoma state court

 convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court

 sentenced Thompson to a term of imprisonment of 235 months, plus a three-year

 term of supervised release.

       Thompson filed a direct appeal challenging the denial of his motion to

 suppress evidence. This court affirmed. United States v. Thompson, 402 F. App’x

 378 (10th Cir. 2010).

       Thompson proceeded to file at least five motions to vacate, set aside, or

 correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. All were unsuccessful. See

 United States v. Thompson, 736 F. App’x 756, 758 (10th Cir. 2018) (recounting

 history of Thompson’s § 2255 motions). Most recently, this court denied Thompson

 authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion asserting that his prior Oklahoma

 drug convictions do not qualify as serious drug offenses under the ACCA. In re

 Thompson, No. 21-6021 (10th Cir. Mar. 22, 2021).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-6136    Document: 010110804091        Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 3

       On July 14, 2021, Thompson, after exhausting administrative remedies, filed a

 motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his

 motion, Thompson cited to United States v. Cantu, 964 F.3d 924 (10th Cir. 2020), a

 decision in which this court held that the Oklahoma criminal statute that gave rise to

 Thompson’s convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Okla.

 Stat. tit. 63, § 2–401(A)(1), is not categorically a “serious drug offense” for purposes

 of the ACCA because it applies to at least three non-federally controlled substances.1

 964 F.3d at 934. Thompson argued that, in light of Cantu, his Oklahoma convictions

 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute no longer qualified as “serious drug

 offenses” for purposes of the ACCA and that, as a result, he had served more than the

 statutory maximum sentence, i.e., 120 months, that would apply under current law.

 Thompson also argued that he had demonstrated “extraordinary” rehabilitation while

 incarcerated, that this rehabilitation demonstrated his lack of dangerousness to the

 community, and that the § 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of his immediate release.

       On July 28, 2022, the district court denied Thompson’s motion for

 compassionate release. In doing so, the district court first addressed and rejected

 Thompson’s argument that, in light of Cantu, he should not have been sentenced

 under the ACCA. Specifically, the district court concluded that “Cantu . . . does not

       1
         In a subsequent unpublished opinion, however, this court recognized that the
 three substances that rendered the statute overbroad were not added until November
 1, 2008, and that, consequently, any Oklahoma state convictions under § 2-401(A)(1)
 that occurred before November 1, 2008, are not overbroad and qualify as ACCA
 predicates. United States v. Traywicks, 827 F. App’x 889, 891 (10th Cir. 2020).
                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-6136    Document: 010110804091        Date Filed: 01/26/2023     Page: 4

 implicate convictions under versions of § 2-401(A)(1) prior to the 2008 amendment,”

 and it in turn noted that Thompson’s “drug convictions occurred in 2005 and 2006,

 both before the [Oklahoma statutory] amendment prompting the Cantu decision.”

 ROA, Vol. I at 446. The district court then addressed and rejected Thompson’s

 argument that “his rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated constitute[d]

 extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence.” Id. at 447. The

 district court “recognize[d] that” Thompson “ha[d] made commendable efforts to

 better himself while in prison,” but it noted that 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) expressly

 provides that “‘[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an

 extraordinary and compelling reason’” for a sentence reduction. Id. (quoting statute).

 Lastly, the district court concluded that “the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors d[id] not

 support granting his motion” because his “extensive criminal history include[d]

 multiple drug convictions, multiple convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon,

 and multiple firearms convictions,” and he “ha[d] also committed serious

 misconduct” while incarcerated,” including “violations for possessing dangerous

 weapons, engaging in sexual acts, and fighting other inmates.” Id. In other words,

 the district court noted, “[t]he need for the sentence to address the various goals of

 sentencing weighs heavily against granting a sentence reduction at this time.” Id. at

 448.

        Thompson filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-6136    Document: 010110804091         Date Filed: 01/26/2023      Page: 5

                                             II

       Thompson argues on appeal that the district court “plainly erred in concluding

 that [he] had two prior ‘serious drug offense[s]” because the Oklahoma statute under

 which he was convicted, Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-401(A)(1), “includes drugs (4-

 methoxyamphetamine and cyclohexamine) that were not listed as federal controlled

 substances in 2008, the year of [Thompson’s] federal offense[s].” Aplt. Br. at 6.

       We review the district court’s ruling on Thompson’s compassionate-release

 motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031

 (10th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect

 conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact,” id. (internal quotation

 marks omitted), or “when it renders a judgment that is arbitrary, capricious,

 whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable,” United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1277

 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) allows defendants, after exhausting administrative

 remedies afforded by the Bureau of Prisons, to move for compassionate release in the

 district court. See United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 830–31 (10th Cir. 2021).

 A district court may grant a motion for compassionate release only if three

 requirements are met: (1) it “finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant

 such a reduction”; (2) it “finds that such a reduction is consistent with applicable

 policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission”; and (3) it “considers the

 factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable.” Id.

 at 831.

                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-6136     Document: 010110804091          Date Filed: 01/26/2023      Page: 6

        In this case, the district court denied Thompson’s motion for compassionate

 release for two reasons. First, it concluded that Thompson failed to establish

 extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. Second, the district

 court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a sentence reduction.

        Thompson’s appellate arguments, at best, address only the first of these

 reasons. In other words, Thompson ignores entirely the district court’s analysis of

 the § 3553(a) factors and its conclusion that those factors did not warrant a sentence

 reduction. For that reason alone, we could affirm the district court’s decision. See

 generally Nixon v. City and Cnty. Of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015)

 (noting that “[t]he first task of an appellant is to explain . . . why the district court’s

 decision was wrong”); Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of El Paso, 543 F.3d

 597, 613 n.7 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[W]here a district court’s disposition rests on

 alternative and adequate grounds, a party who, in challenging that disposition, only

 argues that one alternative is erroneous necessarily loses because the second

 alternative stands as an independent basis, regardless of the correctness of the first

 alternative.”); Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that

 “[p]ro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the

 fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of . . . Appellate Procedure”).

        Even ignoring this fatal problem, we conclude that the arguments that

 Thompson actually makes on appeal do nothing to undermine the district court’s

 conclusion that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a

 sentence reduction. Liberally construing Thompson’s arguments, he appears to be

                                               6
Appellate Case: 22-6136    Document: 010110804091         Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 7

 challenging the district court’s rejection of his argument that, in light of Cantu, he

 should not have been sentenced under the ACCA. Specifically, Thompson contends

 that two Oklahoma scheduled drugs—4-methoxyamphetamine and cyclohexamine—

 “were not listed as federal controlled substances in 2008, the year” he was convicted

 of his federal offenses. Aplt. Br. at 6. But, as the government correctly points out,

 both of these drugs were Schedule I federally controlled substances at the time

 Thompson was convicted of his federal offenses in 2008, and remain such today. See

 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(7) (2023) (4-methoxyamphetamine); id. § 1308.11(d)(7)

 (2007) (4-methoxyamphetamine); id. § 1308.11(d)(32) (2023) (cyclohexamine); id.

 § 1308.11(d)(31) (2007) (cyclohexamine).

                                            III

       The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Thompson’s motion for leave to

 proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Mary Beck Briscoe
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             7