Court Opinion

ID: 9921657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 01:00:30.661761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:55.822177
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10617         Document: 00517036768             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/18/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10617
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               January 18, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ronald George Whitehouse,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-364-9
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ronald George Whitehouse, federal prisoner # 59483-177, moves for
   leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s denial
   of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release.
          In his brief on appeal, Whitehouse argues that he satisfied the 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors by demonstrating his post-sentence rehabilitation,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10617      Document: 00517036768           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                                     No. 23-10617

   his family and community involvement, and his consistent employment
   history. He also argues that his seizures following his previous COVID-19
   infection, as well as his depression and anxiety, constitute extraordinary and
   compelling reasons for his release.
          The record reflects that, after noting the scope of the offense,
   Whitehouse’s criminal history, and the fact that Whitehouse’s 224-month
   sentence was already below the guidelines range, the district court explicitly
   considered the § 3553(a) factors and determined that they weighed against
   granting compassionate release. Whitelaw’s arguments challenging the
   district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors amount to no more than a
   disagreement with the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is
   insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss,
   948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Whitehouse has failed to
   demonstrate that there is a nonfrivolous issue that the district court abused
   its discretion by denying relief based on the § 3553(a) factors, we need not
   consider his arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling reasons. See
   United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d
   at 693-94. Similarly, to the extent Whitehouse argues that his continued
   incarceration while suffering from debilitating health conditions constitutes
   cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, we
   need not reach this argument, because the district court properly disposed of
   the compassionate release motion after considering the § 3553(a) factors. See
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94.
          Because Whitehouse fails to show that his appeal will raise a
   nonfrivolous issue, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal
   is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24
   (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir.
   R. 42.2.

                                          2