Court Opinion

ID: 9948413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 23:00:38.636628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:40.930889
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20365           Document: 51-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/06/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                         FILED
                                  ____________
                                                                               March 6, 2024
                                   No. 23-20365                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                 ____________

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Richard Redmon Anderson,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:12-CR-456-1
                  ______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Richard Redmon Anderson, federal prisoner # 18279-379, appeals the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release.
On appeal, Anderson contends that extraordinary and compelling
circumstances warrant relief. He argues that if he were sentenced today, his
guidelines range would be drastically lower due to an intervening change in

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20365       Document: 51-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/06/2024

                                 No. 23-20365

the sentencing laws. Specifically, he argues that if he were sentenced today,
under the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99
(2013), he only would be held accountable for 100 grams of a controlled
substance instead of the 1,081.03 kilograms of marijuana equivalency.
       We review the denial of Anderson’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103, the
Supreme Court held that facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence,
like those that increase a statutory maximum, must be admitted by the
defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant ruling
in Alleyne, however, is inapplicable in the context of the Sentencing
Guidelines. See United States v. Stanford, 805 F.3d 557, 570 (5th Cir. 2015).
Thus, for purposes of determining an offense level, drug quantity does not
have to be admitted by the defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412-13 (5th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, because the sentencing court’s determination that Anderson
was accountable for 1,081.03 kilograms of marijuana equivalency did not
increase the mandatory minimum for his offense, Alleyne has no bearing on
Anderson’s sentence.
       In his motion before the district court, Anderson further alleged that
he was entitled to relief under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
This amendment reduced the base offense levels for most drugs in the Drug
Quantity Table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend.
782; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); United States v. Taber, 643 F. App’x 452, 452 (5th
Cir. 2016). On appeal, however, Anderson failed to raise this argument in his
brief. We, therefore, find that he has abandoned this argument and we need
not address it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

                                      2
Case: 23-20365         Document: 51-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/06/2024

                                 No. 23-20365

       Because Anderson fails to demonstrate that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release based on its
implicit finding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling
circumstances, we do not reach his argument that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors warranted relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8
(5th Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Accordingly, the district court’s
decision is, in all respects,
                                                               AFFIRMED.

                                        3